Bloom v. Potter
Sea Wasp
>
> In article <8ltcd1$lhs$1...@news.asu.edu>, til...@aztec.asu.edu says...
> > The article I saw was an op-ed piece in the WSJ about 2 wks ago.
> > Bloom was roundly roasted in the letters column which followed.
> >
> > Article is online, but not free -- although I believe WSJ has
> > a free trial offer. Or -- look in your library.
> >
> > I haven't yet read a Harry Potter, so can't say if Bloom's
> > criticisms were fair or not.
>
> See also Guy Kay's post (17 July) to rec.arts.books, which the rabbista
> rather ignored. I haven't read any Potter either. One can read what
> appears to be Bloom's article at
> http://www.nationalpost.com/stories/20000717/346015.html
Bloom's article is as pompously mean-spirited and completely
wrong-headed as anything I've ever seen in print. He makes our friend
Imperialist look open-minded and reasonable. It's tremendously ironic
that such a close-minded man would be the author of a book entitled
"The Closing of the American Mind".
It's quite clear from his article that he really hasn't the faintest
idea of the true antecedents of the Harry Potter books (a boarding
school book, yes, but seen through the mirror of Tolkien? Bah.)
Dumbledore as Gandalf? Feh. Bloom's sneering tone throughout is almost
laughable, demonstrating as it does that he's not at all qualified to
even judge this material, any more than I myself would be qualified to
judge the difference between Umberto Eco's work and that of, say,
Melville. His tone makes it fairly evident that he doesn't even hold
the good professor Tolkien in very high regard.
My disdain is pretty much sealed at the point that he states (as a
fact, not opinion, mind you) that it's better to watch the movie of
The Wizard of Oz than to read the book. This, and his other comments,
supports my suspicion that he is one of the finest examples of what SF
fans sometimes call a " 'dane " (from "mundane") I have ever seen; a
person who does not enjoy anything involving the fantastic, and cannot
imagine why anyone who isn't simply immature WOULD like such a thing.
His preference of the movie Oz to the book strongly supports this; the
largest single difference between the two lies in the fact that in the
book, there is no doubt whatsoever that Oz is just as real as Kansas,
while in the movie Oz is merely a metaphor-filled dream. Metaphoric
dreams and stories are very acceptable in "Lit'rachoor", but in
general fantasylands are not.
Bloom has always been a self-important windbag, but this is one of
his more annoying screeds.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Aaron Bergman
go...@worldnet.att.net (Sharon Goetz) wrote:
> See also Guy Kay's post (17 July) to rec.arts.books, which the rabbista
> rather ignored. I haven't read any Potter either.
I can't find this post on Deja. What did he say?
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Frank
wrote:
> Bloom's article is as pompously mean-spirited and completely
>wrong-headed as anything I've ever seen in print. He makes our friend
>Imperialist look open-minded and reasonable. It's tremendously ironic
>that such a close-minded man would be the author of a book entitled
>"The Closing of the American Mind".
Actually, that book was written by Allan Bloom, not Harold Bloom.
Georgiana Gates
>
> Sharon Goetz wrote:
> >
> > In article <8ltcd1$lhs$1...@news.asu.edu>, til...@aztec.asu.edu says...
> > > The article I saw was an op-ed piece in the WSJ about 2 wks ago.
> > > Bloom was roundly roasted in the letters column which followed.
> > >
> > > Article is online, but not free -- although I believe WSJ has
> > > a free trial offer. Or -- look in your library.
> > >
> > > I haven't yet read a Harry Potter, so can't say if Bloom's
> > > criticisms were fair or not.
> >
> > appears to be Bloom's article at
> > http://www.nationalpost.com/stories/20000717/346015.html
>
> wrong-headed as anything I've ever seen in print. He makes our friend
> Imperialist look open-minded and reasonable. It's tremendously ironic
> that such a close-minded man would be the author of a book entitled
> "The Closing of the American Mind".
>
> his more annoying screeds.
>
so?
Bill Van
TILLMAN) wrote:
>I haven't yet read a Harry Potter, so can't say if Bloom's
>criticisms were fair or not.
>
>Cheers -- Pete Tillman
>Book Reviews: http://www.silcom.com/~manatee/reviewer.html#tillman
>
>--
The comparison to Lord of the Rings is certainly wrong-headed.
But I agree with his over-all criticism, that the first Harry book is
not particularly sophisticated or artful fantasy. I also agree that at
heart, it's first and foremost a British public schools story in fantasy
clothing, not a fantasy book in a Brit public school setting. I think
it's also somewhere near the Hardy Boys niche in the literary food chain.
Nevertheless, reading HP Vol. 1 has been pleasanter than a poke in the
eye with a sharp stick, and I intend to turn to Vol. 2 when I'm done
with it. However, I doubt I'll be coming back for re-reads as I have
with LotR.
bill
MN1st
attacking the Harry Potter books. Was the general tone as negative as I heard?
Is it possible to get a copy of the article on-line?
Thanks.
P.D. TILLMAN
In a previous article, mn...@aol.comnospam (MN1st) says:
>I heard that Harold Bloom has written an article for the Washington Post
>attacking the Harry Potter books. Was the general tone as negative as I heard?
Yes.
>Is it possible to get a copy of the article on-line?
The article I saw was an op-ed piece in the WSJ about 2 wks ago.
Bloom was roundly roasted in the letters column which followed.
Article is online, but not free -- although I believe WSJ has
a free trial offer. Or -- look in your library.
I haven't yet read a Harry Potter, so can't say if Bloom's
Sharon Goetz
> The article I saw was an op-ed piece in the WSJ about 2 wks ago.
> Bloom was roundly roasted in the letters column which followed.
>
> Article is online, but not free -- although I believe WSJ has
> a free trial offer. Or -- look in your library.
>
> I haven't yet read a Harry Potter, so can't say if Bloom's
> criticisms were fair or not.
See also Guy Kay's post (17 July) to rec.arts.books, which the rabbista
rather ignored. I haven't read any Potter either. One can read what
appears to be Bloom's article at
http://www.nationalpost.com/stories/20000717/346015.html
sharon
Dr Nuncheon
Sharon Goetz <go...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>In article <8ltcd1$lhs$1...@news.asu.edu>, til...@aztec.asu.edu says...
>> The article I saw was an op-ed piece in the WSJ about 2 wks ago.
>> Bloom was roundly roasted in the letters column which followed.
>
>rather ignored. I haven't read any Potter either. One can read what
>appears to be Bloom's article at
> http://www.nationalpost.com/stories/20000717/346015.html
Looks to me like someone trying to be witty and controversial by
deliberately speaking against a popular phenomenon - the old "if it's
popular it can't be good" fallacy. He throws in Tolkien references (and
anti-Tolkien slams) for no readily apparent reason - in fact, I wonder if
he's even read Tolkien, because the comparisons he makes are rather
bizarre. Dumbledore is Rowling's Gandalf? Well, inasmuch as they are
both wizards, I suppose. That's like saying that Smiley is le Carre's
James Bond - the two characters are nothing alike except for their
profession.
I'm not a huge Potter fan - like Bloom, I've read the first book. I
thought it was "OK" - nothing to go gaga over, but many of Bloom's
criticisms seem unjustified. I suspect he went into the book looking for
an excuse to dislike it.
After all, it was popular.
J
--
INTERNET SEEMS TO BE FULL OF MILLIONS OF | Jeff Johnston
IDIOTS & LUNATICS ! ! - c2 (ts...@my-deja.com) | jeffj @ io . com
Sea Wasp
> >wrong-headed as anything I've ever seen in print. He makes our friend
> >Imperialist look open-minded and reasonable. It's tremendously ironic
> >that such a close-minded man would be the author of a book entitled
> >"The Closing of the American Mind".
>
-_-;;; (sweatdrop of embarrassment)
Sea Wasp
>
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:21:04 -0400, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Bloom's article is as pompously mean-spirited and completely
> >wrong-headed as anything I've ever seen in print. He makes our friend
> >Imperialist look open-minded and reasonable. It's tremendously ironic
> >that such a close-minded man would be the author of a book entitled
> >"The Closing of the American Mind".
>
> Actually, that book was written by Allan Bloom, not Harold Bloom.
In slight defense, he does appear to have written books closely
related (he DID write the Shakespeare: Invention of the Human book,
yes?). I'm still crestfallen that I made that mistake. Ignorance in
full Bloom, as it were.
Michael S. Schiffer
> Bloom's article is as pompously mean-spirited and completely
>wrong-headed as anything I've ever seen in print. He makes our friend
>Imperialist look open-minded and reasonable. It's tremendously ironic
>that such a close-minded man would be the author of a book entitled
>"The Closing of the American Mind".
It certainly would be, but that was the late Allan Bloom, not Harold
Bloom. (Though as the person who confused Leonora Fulani with Susan
Faludi, I'm not casting any stones here.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
ms...@mediaone.net
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Doug Palmer
> See also Guy Kay's post (17 July) to rec.arts.books, which the rabbista
> rather ignored. I haven't read any Potter either. One can read what
> appears to be Bloom's article at
> http://www.nationalpost.com/stories/20000717/346015.html
I suppose Bloom can't be expected to know about the Magnet/Billy Bunter
stories or the Jennings stories. Or Nigel Molesworth. All of those seem,
to me, to be more obvious sources for the general tone of the stories
than "Tom Brown's Schooldays".
The other influence I would suggest is Roald Dahl. Life with the
Dursleys, in particular, seems to have that Dahlish mixture of genuine
nastiness combined with comforting hyperbole. But Bloom seems to have
missed that.
--
Doug Palmer do...@charvolant.org http://www.charvolant.org/~doug
TARMS do...@tarms.com http://www.tarms.com
GSV Three Minds in a Can
<sea...@wizvax.net> asserted
<snip>
> Metaphoric
>dreams and stories are very acceptable in "Lit'rachoor", but in
>general fantasylands are not.
>
>his more annoying screeds.
Sounds like litcrit snobbery, tempered by a fair admixture of jealousy.
Just as well JKR is a nice lady, or she'd buy his newspaper and fire him
(she could probably afford it before long).
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful Bill Van <Bil...@canada.com> asserted
<snip>
>Nevertheless, reading HP Vol. 1 has been pleasanter than a poke in the
>eye with a sharp stick, and I intend to turn to Vol. 2 when I'm done
>with it. However, I doubt I'll be coming back for re-reads as I have
>with LotR.
IMO it gets better (at least volume 2 was better than 1, and 3 was
better than 2. Still waiting to see if she came keep it up in volume 4).
Nancy Lebovitz
>
> Bloom's article is as pompously mean-spirited and completely
>wrong-headed as anything I've ever seen in print. He makes our friend
>Imperialist look open-minded and reasonable. It's tremendously ironic
>that such a close-minded man would be the author of a book entitled
>"The Closing of the American Mind".
Bloom is the sort who gives intellectuals a bad name.
> It's quite clear from his article that he really hasn't the faintest
>idea of the true antecedents of the Harry Potter books (a boarding
>school book, yes, but seen through the mirror of Tolkien? Bah.)
>Dumbledore as Gandalf? Feh. Bloom's sneering tone throughout is almost
>laughable, demonstrating as it does that he's not at all qualified to
>even judge this material, any more than I myself would be qualified to
>judge the difference between Umberto Eco's work and that of, say,
>Melville. His tone makes it fairly evident that he doesn't even hold
>the good professor Tolkien in very high regard.
I don't think he even read Harry Potter carefully. IIRC, it's made clear
in the first book HP is being raised by Muggles because wizards go
completely off-balance around him, so Dumbledore(?) and crew sensibly
decide that Potter shouldn't be a celebrity from birth.
I'll grant that it isn't till book 4 that there's a mention of why
those particular abominable Muggles are Harry's foster parents--but
it looks as though there's a protective spell involved.
It amuses me that Rowling has become such a celebrity when she's so
dubious about fame.
> My disdain is pretty much sealed at the point that he states (as a
>fact, not opinion, mind you) that it's better to watch the movie of
>The Wizard of Oz than to read the book. This, and his other comments,
>supports my suspicion that he is one of the finest examples of what SF
>fans sometimes call a " 'dane " (from "mundane") I have ever seen; a
I haven't heard anyone use " 'dane"--it's either "mundane" or (among
the more polite) "non-fan".
>person who does not enjoy anything involving the fantastic, and cannot
>imagine why anyone who isn't simply immature WOULD like such a thing.
>His preference of the movie Oz to the book strongly supports this; the
>largest single difference between the two lies in the fact that in the
>book, there is no doubt whatsoever that Oz is just as real as Kansas,
>while in the movie Oz is merely a metaphor-filled dream. Metaphoric
>dreams and stories are very acceptable in "Lit'rachoor", but in
>general fantasylands are not.
>
> Bloom has always been a self-important windbag, but this is one of
>his more annoying screeds.
>
And the worst is that he might give people the impression that reading
the classics will turn you into someone like him.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
The calligraphic button website is up!
Buttons at Pennsic: S&M Leather (Booth 119), Plunder Lane
Phil Fraering
> In article <MPG.13ebe3f04...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> go...@worldnet.att.net (Sharon Goetz) wrote:
>
> > See also Guy Kay's post (17 July) to rec.arts.books, which the rabbista
> > rather ignored. I haven't read any Potter either.
>
> I can't find this post on Deja. What did he say?
I looked at deja too, to no avail. Maybe he has x-no-archive set,
I wouldn't blame him.
--
Phil Fraering "One day, Pinky, A MOUSE shall rule, and it is the
p...@globalreach.net humans who will be forced to endure these humiliating
/Will work for tape/ diversions!"
"You mean like Orlando, Brain?"
Gary J. Weiner
>
> Bitstring <39824D...@wizvax.net> from the wonderful Sea Wasp
> <sea...@wizvax.net> asserted
> <snip>
> >dreams and stories are very acceptable in "Lit'rachoor", but in
> >general fantasylands are not.
> >
> > Bloom has always been a self-important windbag, but this is one of
> >his more annoying screeds.
>
> Just as well JKR is a nice lady, or she'd buy his newspaper and fire him
> (she could probably afford it before long).
Well, Bloom has had a fair bit of success himself. He wrote a
bestselling book about Shakespeare. That's no mean feat.
Still, he does come off as a big grump. Not to mention that he's
completely misguided. I haven't read the Potter books, although my son
Ben is still working his way through book #4, but anything that
encourages kids to read anything, even the back of cereal boxes, is a
positive thing.
--
Gary J. Weiner \ "We've got a blind date with Destiny...and
webm...@hatrack.net \ it looks like she's ordered the lobster."
http://www.hatrack.net \ -The Shoveler, "Mystery Men"
"Hang Your Web With Us!"\
William Davis
It's also getting progressively more complex. I don't think you could
honestly categorize the fourth novel as a British school boy fantasy.
It's more like dark horror wrapped in a children's novel.
As much as I like the Harry Potter books, I am very interested in
seeing what Rowling turns her hand to next. As it is, the HP are
certainly an interesting way to watch a relatively inexperienced
author rather quickly improve.
Georgiana Gates
>
> In article <39824D...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> >
> > Bloom's article is as pompously mean-spirited and completely
> >wrong-headed as anything I've ever seen in print. He makes our friend
> >Imperialist look open-minded and reasonable. It's tremendously ironic
> >that such a close-minded man would be the author of a book entitled
> >"The Closing of the American Mind".
>
> Bloom is the sort who gives intellectuals a bad name.
>
> > It's quite clear from his article that he really hasn't the faintest
> >idea of the true antecedents of the Harry Potter books (a boarding
> >school book, yes, but seen through the mirror of Tolkien? Bah.)
> >Dumbledore as Gandalf? Feh. Bloom's sneering tone throughout is almost
> >laughable, demonstrating as it does that he's not at all qualified to
> >even judge this material, any more than I myself would be qualified to
> >judge the difference between Umberto Eco's work and that of, say,
> >Melville. His tone makes it fairly evident that he doesn't even hold
> >the good professor Tolkien in very high regard.
>
> I don't think he even read Harry Potter carefully. IIRC, it's made clear
> in the first book HP is being raised by Muggles because wizards go
> completely off-balance around him, so Dumbledore(?) and crew sensibly
> decide that Potter shouldn't be a celebrity from birth.
>
> I'll grant that it isn't till book 4 that there's a mention of why
> those particular abominable Muggles are Harry's foster parents--but
> it looks as though there's a protective spell involved.
>
Harry's closest relatives. To me it seems logical to choose them,
hoping that blood would be thicker than magic.
Steve Parker
<G...@quik.freeuk.com> wrote:
>Bitstring <BillVan-6C05CC...@news.direct.ca> from the
>wonderful Bill Van <Bil...@canada.com> asserted
><snip>
>>Nevertheless, reading HP Vol. 1 has been pleasanter than a poke in the
>>eye with a sharp stick, and I intend to turn to Vol. 2 when I'm done
>>with it. However, I doubt I'll be coming back for re-reads as I have
>>with LotR.
>
>IMO it gets better (at least volume 2 was better than 1, and 3 was
>better than 2. Still waiting to see if she came keep it up in volume 4).
She does. And how! Book 4 is fantastic (a review is coming forthwith,
having finished it this morning).
Steve
--
Hugo-Reviews Page (and cover scans) at
http://www.crosswinds.net/~sparker9/home.html
Jaquandor
>>
>> Bitstring <39824D...@wizvax.net> from the wonderful Sea Wasp
>> <sea...@wizvax.net> asserted
>> <snip>
>> > Metaphoric
>> >dreams and stories are very acceptable in "Lit'rachoor", but in
>> >general fantasylands are not.
>> >
>> > Bloom has always been a self-important windbag, but this is one of
>> >his more annoying screeds.
>>
>> Sounds like litcrit snobbery, tempered by a fair admixture of jealousy.
>> Just as well JKR is a nice lady, or she'd buy his newspaper and fire him
>> (she could probably afford it before long).
>
>Well, Bloom has had a fair bit of success himself. He wrote a
>bestselling book about Shakespeare. That's no mean feat.
>
>Still, he does come off as a big grump. Not to mention that he's
>completely misguided. I haven't read the Potter books, although my son
>Ben is still working his way through book #4, but anything that
>encourages kids to read anything, even the back of cereal boxes, is a
>positive thing.
It is always amusing that whenever a book achieves popularity with any group,
be it children (Harry Potter, Goosebumps) adults (Stephen King, Grisham) or
whomever, there is always a hand-wringing champion of "littri-chaw" who
immediately starts thumping the "Can't you read something better?" drum. Very
tiring.
The most laughable comment in Bloom's essay, to me, was his complaint that sex
doesn't seem to exist in Rowling's world. Why Bloom would expect sexual themes
in a book whose main characters are a group of eleven-year-olds is beyond me.
As I recall that age, it seems to me that eleven is when girls became mildly
intriguing and exasperating, this being the first stage beyond the "Ewwwww!
Giirrrrrllllllzzzz!" stage. Of course, I can't speak to Bloom's experiences
when he was eleven....
Thus say I, and sayeth I no more.
-J
Jaquandor
><G...@quik.freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>Bitstring <BillVan-6C05CC...@news.direct.ca> from the
>>wonderful Bill Van <Bil...@canada.com> asserted
>><snip>
>>>Nevertheless, reading HP Vol. 1 has been pleasanter than a poke in the
>>>eye with a sharp stick, and I intend to turn to Vol. 2 when I'm done
>>>with it. However, I doubt I'll be coming back for re-reads as I have
>>>with LotR.
>>
>>IMO it gets better (at least volume 2 was better than 1, and 3 was
>>better than 2. Still waiting to see if she came keep it up in volume 4).
>
>She does. And how! Book 4 is fantastic (a review is coming forthwith,
>having finished it this morning).
I've got 150 pages to go, and thus far it's pretty masterful. In books three
and four she seems to be getting really good at building a sense of impending
doom as the climax draws near, and there is (as always) some wonderful bits of
dark imagination. The bits with Harry and Ron in the Divination class are
terriffic.
I'm starting to dread finding out who dies, though.
Estraven
news:398317...@hal-pc.org...
> Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
<snip>
> > I don't think he even read Harry Potter carefully. IIRC, it's made
> > clear
> > in the first book HP is being raised by Muggles because wizards go
> > completely off-balance around him, so Dumbledore(?) and crew sensibly
> > decide that Potter shouldn't be a celebrity from birth.
> >
> > I'll grant that it isn't till book 4 that there's a mention of why
> > those particular abominable Muggles are Harry's foster parents--but
> > it looks as though there's a protective spell involved.
> >
> I haven't read book 4, but it's clear in book 1 that the Dursleys are
> Harry's closest relatives. To me it seems logical to choose them,
> hoping that blood would be thicker than magic.
It is also clear from Hagrid's response in book 1 that the Dursleys were
generally expected to educate Harry on his heritage. This suggests that
the wizards in charge that decision didn't know the Dursleys too well.
Estraven
<snip>
> It is also clear from Hagrid's response in book 1 that the Dursleys were
> generally expected to educate Harry on his heritage. This suggests that
> the wizards in charge that decision didn't know the Dursleys too well.
I've just discovered an unused "of" beside my keyboard, which I overlooked
when assembling the above.
Bill Van
<estr...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>It is also clear from Hagrid's response in book 1 that the Dursleys were
>generally expected to educate Harry on his heritage. This suggests that
>the wizards in charge that decision didn't know the Dursleys too well.
>
I think that relates to my earlier comment to the effect that Book 1 was
not a very sophisticated or polished work. I'm nearly finished it, and
have constantly got the impression she's making it up as she goes rather
than working with a coherent outline.
So perhaps she intended you to conclude that the wizards in charge
didn't know the Dursleys too well, or perhaps this first novel has a few
unintentional continuity problems. My gut feeling is that it's the
latter.
But I'm pleased to hear from various posters that the series grows in
sophistication and gets a little darker. I'll stay with it a while.
Bill
GSV Three Minds in a Can
William Davis <wis...@mindspring.com> asserted
<snip>
>>>Nevertheless, reading HP Vol. 1 has been pleasanter than a poke in the
>>>eye with a sharp stick, and I intend to turn to Vol. 2 when I'm done
>>>with it. However, I doubt I'll be coming back for re-reads as I have
>>>with LotR.
>>
>>IMO it gets better (at least volume 2 was better than 1, and 3 was
>>better than 2. Still waiting to see if she came keep it up in volume 4).
>
>honestly categorize the fourth novel as a British school boy fantasy.
>It's more like dark horror wrapped in a children's novel.
>
>As much as I like the Harry Potter books, I am very interested in
>seeing what Rowling turns her hand to next.
Well, she sort of owes us the last three HP books (the initial outline
covered 7, i.e. the 7 years HP is at school, I assume). After that I
guess she has wide scope to a) retire (*sob*), b) Turn out a new series
of some kind (*applaud*), or c) Drag HP out through another N+1 volumes
(hiss, in fact =HISS=).
If she writes to live, then option a) looks good, if she can withstand
the clamouring of millions of tiny voices asking for 'more'. 8>.
--
Davies News
--
Scottie
Michael Caldwell
>Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>> My disdain is pretty much sealed at the point that he states (as a
>>fact, not opinion, mind you) that it's better to watch the movie of
>>The Wizard of Oz than to read the book. This, and his other comments,
>>supports my suspicion that he is one of the finest examples of what SF
>>fans sometimes call a " 'dane " (from "mundane") I have ever seen; a
>I haven't heard anyone use " 'dane"--it's either "mundane" or (among
>the more polite) "non-fan".
Or "Norm" or "Normie" here, though I suppose most Yanks don't come
across 2000AD (From whence Judge Dread comes), and have thus
not been exposed to "Strontnium Dogs" the way this little corner of the
world has.
--
Michael Caldwell
>Sharon Goetz wrote:
>> See also Guy Kay's post (17 July) to rec.arts.books, which the rabbista
>> rather ignored. I haven't read any Potter either. One can read what
>> appears to be Bloom's article at
>> http://www.nationalpost.com/stories/20000717/346015.html
>I suppose Bloom can't be expected to know about the Magnet/Billy Bunter
>stories or the Jennings stories. Or Nigel Molesworth. All of those seem,
>to me, to be more obvious sources for the general tone of the stories
>than "Tom Brown's Schooldays".
Although in all fairness the above were themselves decended from "Tom
Brown's Schooldays". I'd finger "Stalky and Co" to a certain extent too,
tonewise at least, though you don't have the same level of "highjinks".
--
MN1st
>Looks to me like someone trying to be witty and controversial by
>deliberately speaking against a popular phenomenon - the old "if it's
>popular it can't be good" fallacy. He throws in Tolkien references (and
>anti-Tolkien slams) for no readily apparent reason - in fact, I wonder if
>he's even read Tolkien, because the comparisons he makes are rather
>bizarre. Dumbledore is Rowling's Gandalf? Well, inasmuch as they are
>both wizards, I suppose. That's like saying that Smiley is le Carre's
>James Bond - the two characters are nothing alike except for their
>profession.
>
>I'm not a huge Potter fan - like Bloom, I've read the first book. I
>thought it was "OK" - nothing to go gaga over, but many of Bloom's
>criticisms seem unjustified. I suspect he went into the book looking for
>an excuse to dislike it.
>
>After all, it was popular.
That was my impression. Fussy old men like to complain about things that are
popular, especially if they're popular with young people. He should spend more
time complaining that Glen Miller's swing music is leading our kids down the
primrose path to heck.
Steve Parker
Or that our youth are going to be corrupted by "the presence of a pool
table in their community. Well, y' got trouble my friend....."
Jaquandor
>covered 7, i.e. the 7 years HP is at school, I assume). After that I
>guess she has wide scope to a) retire (*sob*), b) Turn out a new series
>of some kind (*applaud*), or c) Drag HP out through another N+1 volumes
>(hiss, in fact =HISS=).
If she opts for course (b) as you've outlined above, I hope she writes a
totally new series, with new characters, plots, settings, etc. She could very
well attempt to do a "Hogwarts: The Next Generation" or some such thing....
Wim Lewis
Bill Van <Bil...@canada.com> wrote:
>In article <_HLg5.39119$qS3....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>, "Estraven"
><estr...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>>It is also clear from Hagrid's response in book 1 that the Dursleys were
>>generally expected to educate Harry on his heritage. This suggests that
>>the wizards in charge that decision didn't know the Dursleys too well.
>>
>
>
>So perhaps she intended you to conclude that the wizards in charge
>didn't know the Dursleys too well, or perhaps this first novel has a few
>unintentional continuity problems. My gut feeling is that it's the
>latter.
Well, I've only read the first two books, but it seems pretty clear
that most wizards are pretty clueless about *anything* in the mundane
world. Consider Mr. Weasley, whose *job* is to interact with Muggles,
but who is still constantly surprised or fascinated by random muggle
tech (telephones, buses, that sort of thing). Individual Muggle-born
wizards must presumably have a familiarity with the Muggle world, but
this doesn't seem to carry over to a general familiarity with Muggle
society among wizards.
--
Wim Lewis * wi...@hhhh.org * Seattle, WA, USA
"If you torture the data enough, nature will always confess." (R H Coase)
Cambias
> Sharon Goetz wrote:
> >
> > In article <8ltcd1$lhs$1...@news.asu.edu>, til...@aztec.asu.edu says...
> > > The article I saw was an op-ed piece in the WSJ about 2 wks ago.
> > > Bloom was roundly roasted in the letters column which followed.
> > >
> > > Article is online, but not free -- although I believe WSJ has
> > > a free trial offer. Or -- look in your library.
> > >
> > > I haven't yet read a Harry Potter, so can't say if Bloom's
> > > criticisms were fair or not.
> >
> > See also Guy Kay's post (17 July) to rec.arts.books, which the rabbista
> > rather ignored. I haven't read any Potter either. One can read what
> > appears to be Bloom's article at
> > http://www.nationalpost.com/stories/20000717/346015.html
>
> Bloom's article is as pompously mean-spirited and completely
> wrong-headed as anything I've ever seen in print. He makes our friend
> Imperialist look open-minded and reasonable. It's tremendously ironic
> that such a close-minded man would be the author of a book entitled
> "The Closing of the American Mind".
>
Just to pedantic about pedants: Allan Bloom (U of Chicago, dead) wrote
"Closing of the American Mind" (in which he used myself and other U of C
students of the day as proof of the decline of Western Civilization;
thanks, Al). Harold Bloom (Yale, not dead) is a Shakespeare scholar who
isn't quite as allergic to pop culture as his article might imply. He
wrote a gushing piece about "Shakespeare in Love" for Newsweek, I think.
Cambias
William December Starr
go...@worldnet.att.net (Sharon Goetz) said:
>> I haven't yet read a Harry Potter, so can't say if Bloom's criticisms
>> were fair or not.
>
> See also Guy Kay's post (17 July) to rec.arts.books, which the
> rabbista rather ignored. I haven't read any Potter either. One can
> read what appears to be Bloom's article at
> http://www.nationalpost.com/stories/20000717/346015.html
"Rabbista?"
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
William December Starr
<gk...@home.nospam.com.invalid> said:
> If Bloom is wrong about Rowling (or about Jackie Collins) the
> necessary response is to offer arguments FOR the excellence of the
> work impugned, not to dodge that by excoriating the critic's bona
> fides. And arguments for the 'fun' of a work do NOT answer Bloom,
> though they probably point to the middle ground that we'll all end up
> on once the cultural hysteria passes.
Mind you, arguments for the 'fun' of the work DO answer Bloom when he
pompous^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hexplicitly asks:
Is there any redeeming educational use to Rowling? Is there any
to Stephen King? Why read, if what you read will not enrich mind
or spirit or personality?
Sea Wasp
>
> In article <39824D...@wizvax.net>, sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
>
> > Sharon Goetz wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <8ltcd1$lhs$1...@news.asu.edu>, til...@aztec.asu.edu says...
> > > > The article I saw was an op-ed piece in the WSJ about 2 wks ago.
> > > > Bloom was roundly roasted in the letters column which followed.
> > > >
> > > > Article is online, but not free -- although I believe WSJ has
> > > > a free trial offer. Or -- look in your library.
> > > >
> > > > criticisms were fair or not.
> > >
> > > See also Guy Kay's post (17 July) to rec.arts.books, which the rabbista
> > > rather ignored. I haven't read any Potter either. One can read what
> > > appears to be Bloom's article at
> > > http://www.nationalpost.com/stories/20000717/346015.html
> >
> > wrong-headed as anything I've ever seen in print. He makes our friend
> > Imperialist look open-minded and reasonable. It's tremendously ironic
> > that such a close-minded man would be the author of a book entitled
> > "The Closing of the American Mind".
> >
> Just to pedantic about pedants: Allan Bloom (U of Chicago, dead) wrote
> "Closing of the American Mind"
Yes, I know.
I will continue flagellating myself with a wet noodle over that
little oopsie for some time to come, I suspect.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Andrew C. Wheeler
Even more importantly, Bloom's essay itself is much less defensible on the
"enriching the soul" front, and thus much less worthy of being read than
Rowling's novels. Therefore a quite plausible response is that reading
Bloom's criticism is of no redeeming educational use, unlike Rowling or
King. But the real point is that Bloom just worte a polemic; he said "I
don't like this," and didn't really give any reasons for that dislike.
(Other than the implied "I am an important, famous literary critic,
therefore my personal tastes are value judgements.")
Andrew Wheeler
Mike Kozlowski
>I was also disappointed with what seemed to be Bloom's attack on HP
>because of its popularity.
I didn't read it that way. Bloom was bemoaning the popularity, and only
bothering to even savage the book because of its popularity; but the sense
of the article was that he would have been just as dismissive of the book
had it not been popular. (Though he probably wouldn't then have read it
at all.)
>attack makes me think of bringing dynamite out to kill gophers. To give
>her credit, I don't believe Joanna Rowlings has any pretension of
>literariness; she is only writing books she would have like to have read
>herself and seems to have struck a nerve with the reading public.
I agree, and I think Bloom recognizes that, too. To me, it appears that
the real thrust of Bloom's ire is targeted at the popularity of
mediocrity. He believes the Potter books to be second-rate, mediocre
books, and is irritated that millions of kids are reading them instead of
reading good kids' books. It's an understandable irritation, and I have
more than a little sympathy with the view. On the other hand, I've read
my share of fluff without first working my through the canon of Western
Literature, so my walls are looking pretty vitreous.
Bloom also seems to be annoyed at the rapturous "it's getting kids to
read!" tone that so many people take when talking about Potter, and here
I'm in full agreement with him. Like Bloom, I don't think there's
anything inherently wonderful about reading in itself -- reading the
latest issue of People confers no more virtue than watching Entertainment
Tonight, and less than watching a good movie. Yet people still persist in
imagining reading to be inherently better than other forms of
entertainment -- if you proudly proclaim that you never watch TV, people
nod admiringly; if you just as proudly announce that you never read books,
people cluck about your militant ignorance. So it's nice to see Bloom
attacking the false halo of virtuousness that hangs around the Potter
books.
>What annoyed me was Bloom's sideways attack on Tolkien,
I couldn't tell if he was attacking Tolkien or not. About the most
derisive he got toward Tolkien was when he referred to the Potter-like
Tolkien craze of decades past. That might be a shot, or it might just be
a recitation of history. Hard to tell.
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
Bill Van
(Robert Pearlman) wrote:
>>I think that relates to my earlier comment to the effect that Book 1 was
>>not a very sophisticated or polished work. I'm nearly finished it, and
>>have constantly got the impression she's making it up as she goes rather
>>than working with a coherent outline.
>
>There's an article in last week's New Yorker which says that Rowling
>spent years working out the wizard world before starting to write.
>
Haven't seen the New Yorker piece, but I'm surprised to hear that. I'm
thinking of things like: a simplistic view of magic where you wear a
robe and pointy hat and wave your wand, and things happen, instead of a
magic that's explained in some internally consistent detail; the sudden
appearance of, say, a giant three-headed dog with a cute name with no
sense of where such creaturs come from but the plot needs one right now;
the off-handed introduction of a dragon, again with no detail of dragon
lore and no more reason for its existence than that the plot needed
something; the use at crucial plot moments of spells that we haven't
heard mention of before.
Come to think of it, I can think of almost no foreshadowing of anything
in Book 1. Little that happens seems to have antecedents or roots in
foregoing events. That's where I get the sense Rowling didn't know where
she was heading even as she wrote. Could it be possible that the New
Yorker was talking about what she did before Book 4, which is reportedly
much more complex?
Nevertheless, I'm starting Book 2, in the hope that it will, as several
people here have said, become more sophisticated, darker, more complex.
(I'm trying to avoid -- with little success -- comparing Book1 to LeGuin's
Wizard of Earthsea books, LotR, the first Silverberg Valentine book,
Greg Bear's Infinity Concerto, etc. I'm afraid Harry's not in the same
league as any of them, judging only by the first book.)
bill
Ben Kaufman
D. Gascoyne <gasc...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3984EBCA...@home.com...
> gk...@home.nospam.com.invalid wrote:
>
>
> (excellent points snipped)
> > I'm also tired of Rowling being called derivative. So what if her books
> are in the tradition of boarding school stories? Auden wrote something
> to the extent that we try much too hard to be original, which is beside
> the point, and should rather strive to be authentic, which is far more
> important.
> Debbie
> --
Plus, is the HP series *really* derivative of _Tom Brown's Schooldays_, as
Bloom claims? I doubt it. If so:
Harry would have a loving home life and not the Durselys (Tom Brown's home
life is pure treacle);
Dumbledore would be a former Quiddich player and great enthusiast of the
game, as the headmaster in TBS was for the game of Rugby (I believe in real
life he invented the game) -- yet Dumbledore rarely attends the games;
Harry would be an enthusiastic though unskilled player of the school game --
yet he is an enormous star from the first time he gets on a broomstick (the
least appealing part of the books, IMHO, the super boy is better left to
Heinlein or Van Vogt's _Slan_)
Harry would be in awe of his prefect/head boy, who in turn would take the
defenseless youngster under his wing -- yet Harry mostly mocks and at best
ignores poor Percy Weasly;
Draco Malfoy would be a 5th year when Harry started and would make him fag
and (literally) torture him until he was found out and expelled -- yet Harry
gives as good (or better) as he gets from Malfoy; and
George MacDonald Fraser would go on to write a series of books, starting
with _Malfoy_, about how Draco Malfoy, though actually a coward, cad and
womanizer, bumbles his way through history as a hero. <g>
Tom Brown is barely the hero of his own book -- his chief qualities appear
to be a high pain threshold and a rather insufferable sense of
righteousness.
John Lorentz
wrote:
>
>She does. And how! Book 4 is fantastic (a review is coming forthwith,
>having finished it this morning).
>
I think "fantastic" to describe Harry Potter 4 is too mild a
description.
--
John
MN1st
>Or that our youth are going to be corrupted by "the presence of a pool
>table in their community. Well, y' got trouble my friend....."
Don't forget comic books. All that homo-eroticism, ie Bucky Barnes, Dick
Greyson, etc.
William Davis
>Just to pedantic about pedants: Allan Bloom (U of Chicago, dead) wrote
>"Closing of the American Mind" (in which he used myself and other U of C
>students of the day as proof of the decline of Western Civilization;
>thanks, Al). Harold Bloom (Yale, not dead) is a Shakespeare scholar who
>isn't quite as allergic to pop culture as his article might imply. He
>wrote a gushing piece about "Shakespeare in Love" for Newsweek, I think.
And his list of greatest novels of the Western Canon include several
science fiction titles, incluing LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness.
Jaquandor
>Elsewhere in this thread people have been offering the 'he's jealous'
>or 'he's a snobby old fart' notions. These, too, might even be true,
>though the first sounds more than a little stupid to me (and to Mr
>Weiner, I gather), and the second is sheer ad hominem defensiveness
>against formal assessment of a work.
The problem, as I see it, is that Bloom has offered little formal assessment of
the work in question. His article is mainly a collection of "Isn't it terrible
what people are reading these days" platitudes, putting forth no real summation
of what he takes to be Rowling's shortcomings, and when he does, it is
certainly questionable (as other posters here have shown) as to whether he is
even understanding the work in question.
> If Bloom is wrong about Rowling
>(or about Jackie Collins) the necessary response is to offer arguments
>FOR the excellence of the work impugned, not to dodge that by
>excoriating the critic's bona fides.
When the critic makes his/her point by excoriating the bona fides of a reader,
does he/she not open the door to similar treatment? Perhaps not, but it seems
to me that analyzing a critic's motives is at least sometimes fair game.
>And arguments for the 'fun' of a
>work do NOT answer Bloom, though they probably point to the middle
>ground that we'll all end up on once the cultural hysteria passes.
>
>Bloom might be challenged for offering a view based on only one volume
>of a long work. (Though everyone here is also making judgements on a
>partial work, of course.) There's a fair bit of room to debate -many-
>of his comments, but surely that is what litcrit is ABOUT. Tolkien was
>attacked by Wilson, defended by Auden ... both were intelligent,
>honourable readers. Rowling is surely not sacrosanct (and God knows I
>hope she'd endorse this thought). Just as it is silly for some here to
>lament that the Potter books outsell by so staggering a margin books
>seen as better (and similar sometimes, a la Diana Wynne Jones) it is
>just as silly to assume that a negative literary assessment MUST be
>invalid, merely because it sounds bad-tempered or invokes standards one
>hadn't thought were on the table.
To the extent that this has happened, I agree with you. But there has been some
demonstration that Bloom, in this case, simply doesn't know what he is talking
about.
>For the record, Bloom disappointed me in firing from the
>hip/lip/keyboard as glibly as he did, but I entirely accept the notion
>that when books become cultural phenomena AND are receiving encomiums
>for excellence some readers might read them who would otherwise not
>have done so, and apply tests that cause them to differ in their
>assessment.
>
>Joan Acocella, writing in the 'New Yorker' this week, loves the Potter
>books, incidentally. She's read all four.
Damn. I knew I let my subscription run out too early. :)
Emma Pease
>In article <MPG.13ebe3f04...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>go...@worldnet.att.net (Sharon Goetz) said:
>
>>> were fair or not.
>>
>> See also Guy Kay's post (17 July) to rec.arts.books, which the
>> rabbista rather ignored. I haven't read any Potter either. One can
>> read what appears to be Bloom's article at
>> http://www.nationalpost.com/stories/20000717/346015.html
>
A term for the Rec.Arts.Books locals though I think the more common
term is rabble. When they meet in real life it is a RABfest.
It is interesting to note the different terms different newsgroups use
to call their regulars and also to call their real life gatherings.
At one time I believe a real life gathering of usenet SF fans was
called an @ party.
Emma
ps. I found Potter rather fun and getting more complex.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
D. Gascoyne
>
> In article <398303D1...@hatrack.net>, "Gary J. Weiner"
(snips)
> For the record, Bloom disappointed me in firing from the
> hip/lip/keyboard as glibly as he did, but I entirely accept the notion
> that when books become cultural phenomena AND are receiving encomiums
> for excellence some readers might read them who would otherwise not
> have done so, and apply tests that cause them to differ in their
> assessment
I was also disappointed with what seemed to be Bloom's attack on HP
because of its popularity. If the books _were_ receiving "encomiums for
excellence" - eg Carnegie Medals or some such - his comments might be
more to the point. So far, although shortlisted for at least two
Carnegies and the Whitbread (and the Hugo), they have only won two
"Smarties" prizes, which are voted for by kids (a shortlist is compiled
by library types first, but the final votes are by readers). Bloom's
attack makes me think of bringing dynamite out to kill gophers. To give
her credit, I don't believe Joanna Rowlings has any pretension of
literariness; she is only writing books she would have like to have read
herself and seems to have struck a nerve with the reading public.
What annoyed me was Bloom's sideways attack on Tolkien, and claim that
Rowling is influenced by him. This is just rubbish, and any real
familiarity with either writer or with children's fantasy in general
would have precluded his making such an empty criticism.
I'm also tired of Rowling being called derivative. So what if her books
are in the tradition of boarding school stories? Auden wrote something
to the extent that we try much too hard to be original, which is beside
the point, and should rather strive to be authentic, which is far more
important.
Debbie
--
D. Gascoyne
English Instructor, Camosun College
PhD Candidate, University of Victoria
"hoc in loco praecantato summa in Silva sito puellus et Ursus suus
semper ludet"
Robert Pearlman
Goetz) wrote:
>In article <8ltcd1$lhs$1...@news.asu.edu>, til...@aztec.asu.edu says...
>> The article I saw was an op-ed piece in the WSJ about 2 wks ago.
>> Bloom was roundly roasted in the letters column which followed.
>>
>> Article is online, but not free -- although I believe WSJ has
>> a free trial offer. Or -- look in your library.
>>
>> I haven't yet read a Harry Potter, so can't say if Bloom's
>> criticisms were fair or not.
>
>See also Guy Kay's post (17 July) to rec.arts.books, which the rabbista
>rather ignored. I haven't read any Potter either. One can read what
>appears to be Bloom's article at
> http://www.nationalpost.com/stories/20000717/346015.html
>
>sharon
Is this the same Harold Bloom who wrote "The Closing of the American
Mind"? If so, it will be a big surprise to me, because I thought he
was dead.
The tone of the review and TCOTAM are so different that I doubt the
authors' identity.
Pearlman
Robert Pearlman
wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:21:04 -0400, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Bloom's article is as pompously mean-spirited and completely
>>wrong-headed as anything I've ever seen in print. He makes our friend
>>Imperialist look open-minded and reasonable. It's tremendously ironic
>>that such a close-minded man would be the author of a book entitled
>>"The Closing of the American Mind".
>
>Actually, that book was written by Allan Bloom, not Harold Bloom.
>
Thank you for this post. I've already posted a query about the
possible identity of the authors and I would cancel it if I could
figure out how to make Eudora do that.
I endorse Sea Wasp's views completely, except that I do think
Imperialist is worse.
Robert Pearlman
wrote:
>And the worst is that he might give people the impression that reading
>the classics will turn you into someone like him.
Sound of air escaping from balloon. Well Done!
Robert Pearlman
wrote:
>In article <_HLg5.39119$qS3....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>, "Estraven"
><estr...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>It is also clear from Hagrid's response in book 1 that the Dursleys were
>>generally expected to educate Harry on his heritage. This suggests that
>>the wizards in charge that decision didn't know the Dursleys too well.
>>
>
>I think that relates to my earlier comment to the effect that Book 1 was
>not a very sophisticated or polished work. I'm nearly finished it, and
>have constantly got the impression she's making it up as she goes rather
>than working with a coherent outline.
There's an article in last week's New Yorker which says that Rowling
spent years working out the wizard world before starting to write.
I'd offer a couple of possible explanations for your impression:
1) Misimpression. It can happen.
2) As long as we're playing in "it seems to me" land: before the
success of "Sorceror's Stone" Rowling was in a much weaker position
vis-a-vis the editors, what have you. (Perhaps they were trained in
the same school as Harold Bloom, which was why so many of them turned
it down.) So some of their suggestions might have made it into the
book. Maybe in the future there will be an "author's edition".
Pearlman
Karen Lofstrom
: But I agree with his over-all criticism, that the first Harry book is
: not particularly sophisticated or artful fantasy. I also agree that at
: heart, it's first and foremost a British public schools story in fantasy
: clothing, not a fantasy book in a Brit public school setting. I think
: it's also somewhere near the Hardy Boys niche in the literary food chain.
But it has brio. And it keeps you turning the pages to find out what
happens next. At least it did that to me. Yes, it's a commonplace public
school story with magical trappings, but I think it does get points for
pacing and verve.
I'm remembering a book I checked out from the library and never finished.
Something called _Sorrowheart_. The writing was well-done and the world
seemed to be interesting but the pace ... aah, it was like watching a
snail race.
I have the feeling that pacing is an element that common readers value,
and that academics seem to neglect. Simplistic notion, probably wrong in
large part, refute and develop it as you please :)
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Is this the Gordian knot? The thing doctors sever upon birth?
Personally, I like navel oranges the best." -- Ludwig Plutonium
P.D. TILLMAN
For those coming in late, Bloom's now-infamous anti-HP screed
is at, hmm -- well, there's a link at Locus:
http://www.locusmag.com/Whatsnew.html
(BTW, this is the same article that the WSJ ran a couple
wks ago)
-- along with tons of other HP stuff.
The NYer review (mentioned @ bottom of quoted post)
notes that Rowling had sold 30 million copies of HP 1-3,
plus what, 5 MM HP-4's in the first week? So, 'he's jealous'
may not be unreasonable.... it is a pretty mean-spirited
piece.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
>>For the record, Bloom disappointed me in firing from the
>>hip/lip/keyboard as glibly as he did, but I entirely accept the notion
>>that when books become cultural phenomena AND are receiving encomiums
>>for excellence some readers might read them who would otherwise not
>>have done so, and apply tests that cause them to differ in their
>>assessment.
>>
>>Joan Acocella, writing in the 'New Yorker' this week, loves the Potter
>>books, incidentally. She's read all four.
>
>Damn. I knew I let my subscription run out too early. :)
>
>
>Thus say I, and sayeth I no more.
>
>-J
>
>
--
Gene Wirchenko
>Estraven <estr...@netcom.ca> wrote:
><snip>
>> It is also clear from Hagrid's response in book 1 that the Dursleys were
>> generally expected to educate Harry on his heritage. This suggests that
>> the wizards in charge that decision didn't know the Dursleys too well.
>
>I've just discovered an unused "of" beside my keyboard, which I overlooked
>when assembling the above.
<FX: LOL> Nicely stated.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
P.D. TILLMAN
In a previous article, til...@aztec.asu.edu (P.D. TILLMAN) says:
>
>
>For those coming in late, Bloom's now-infamous anti-HP screed
>is at, hmm -- well, there's a link at Locus:
>
> http://www.locusmag.com/Whatsnew.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/stories/20000717/346015.html
>
>(BTW, this is the same article that the WSJ ran a couple
>wks ago)
>
>-- along with tons of other HP stuff.
>
>The NYer review (mentioned @ bottom of quoted post)
>notes that Rowling had sold 30 million copies of HP 1-3,
>plus what, 5 MM HP-4's in the first week? So, 'he's jealous'
>may not be unreasonable.... it is a pretty mean-spirited
>piece.
>
>Cheers -- Pete Tillman
>
--
Doug Palmer
>
> Doug Palmer wrote in message <3982C2A2...@charvolant.org>...
> >I suppose Bloom can't be expected to know about the Magnet/Billy Bunter
> >stories or the Jennings stories. Or Nigel Molesworth. All of those seem,
> >to me, to be more obvious sources for the general tone of the stories
> >than "Tom Brown's Schooldays".
>
> Although in all fairness the above were themselves decended from "Tom
> Brown's Schooldays". I'd finger "Stalky and Co" to a certain extent too,
> tonewise at least, though you don't have the same level of "highjinks".
Off on a slightly different tack. Bloom mentions "The Wind in the
Willows" and the "Alice" books as superior fare for children. Books that
are, IMO, close to the top of the table in the "'Children's Books' Loved
by Adults and Ignored by Children" league.
Being 37 and all, I think that these are all fine stories. I do think,
though, that they're essentally adult-directed novels with a sprinkling
of fairy dust over them. The characters in tWitW, are all largely
concerned with adult pursuits, Ratty in particular. Even Toad's
fecklessness is a rather grown-up sort of stupidity, derived from a sort
of license simply unavailable to children. In the Alice books, Alice --
the protagonist and the only real child in the books -- is simply a
passive thing to be operated upon by Carrol's allusions and bits of
whimsey. Compare these books with something by Ransome, Nesbit or Dahl
that have real, active children as characters -- or, ObSF, Heinlein's
juveniles or the Christopher's tripod books.
"Tom Browns Schooldays", LotR, tWitW, "Alice in Wonderland": all books
that might cross the bow of someone with a literary education, but not
titles I would have suggested to indicate that someone knows much about
children's books -- and, heaven knows, I'm no expert. Bloom's tripod
does seem to be wading a little too close to the continental shelf when
it comes to children's literature.
--
Doug Palmer do...@charvolant.org http://www.charvolant.org/~doug
TARMS do...@tarms.com http://www.tarms.com
Joe Slater
>Plus, is the HP series *really* derivative of _Tom Brown's Schooldays_, as
>Bloom claims? I doubt it. If so:
No; it's derivative of the schoolboy stories which followed TBS. I
only picked up a copy of the books once, but I immediately saw that it
was nothing more than Bunter on a broomstick. In fact it's not even up
to Bunter's standards; it's Enid Blyton writing about The Naughtiest
Witch in the School.
jds
--
Can more than 35 million book buyers, and their offspring, be wrong? Yes,
they have been, and will continue to be so for as long as they persevere
with Potter.
- Harold Bloom
Ben Kaufman
Bill Van <Bil...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:BillVan-F4252E...@news.direct.ca...
>
> Haven't seen the New Yorker piece, but I'm surprised to hear that. I'm
> thinking of things like: a simplistic view of magic where you wear a
> robe and pointy hat and wave your wand, and things happen, instead of a
> magic that's explained in some internally consistent detail; the sudden
> appearance of, say, a giant three-headed dog with a cute name with no
> sense of where such creaturs come from but the plot needs one right now;
> the off-handed introduction of a dragon, again with no detail of dragon
> lore and no more reason for its existence than that the plot needed
> something; the use at crucial plot moments of spells that we haven't
> heard mention of before.
That's hardly the case in the HP books -- even the first. The giant 3
headed dog is given a cute name because Hagrid named him -- Hagrid is
consistently shown as treating monsters as soft, fluffy pets. It's his
nature. And all the creatures of myth and lengend appear to exist in the HP
universe -- the muggles just don't know about it.
Lots of dragon lore is given in the books -- particularly HP1 and HP4. In
HP1, Charlie Weasly is explalined to be officially involved in researching
dragons. And the dragon doesn't come from a spell, but from an important
plot point of an evil character making use of another's known weakness.
And wizardry is shown as hard -- much study is necessary and the students,
though qualified and talented, make many mistakes. Hermione is always at
the library. I do agree that the existence of many spells appear to jump
out at the last moment (someone else compared this to the technobabble
solutions on ST), but more often the author lays the groundwork far in
advance.
>
> Come to think of it, I can think of almost no foreshadowing of anything
> in Book 1. Little that happens seems to have antecedents or roots in
> foregoing events. That's where I get the sense Rowling didn't know where
> she was heading even as she wrote. Could it be possible that the New
> Yorker was talking about what she did before Book 4, which is reportedly
> much more complex?
There's tons of foreshadowing in HP1, as in every HP book. You just need to
go on. The very first chapter of the first book Hagrid makes a passing
reference to "young Sirius Black." He'll be important, just you wait.
Almost everything is given foreshadowing -- it's one of the series best
features and a way to keep guessing the mysteries along with Harry, Ron and
Hermione (I suggest you bring your Bullfinches Mythology). E.g., in the 1st
book, once you know who Fluffy is, if you remember the story of Orpheus then
you know how to render him safe.
> Nevertheless, I'm starting Book 2, in the hope that it will, as several
> people here have said, become more sophisticated, darker, more complex.
They do.
>
> (I'm trying to avoid -- with little success -- comparing Book1 to LeGuin's
> Wizard of Earthsea books, LotR, the first Silverberg Valentine book,
> Greg Bear's Infinity Concerto, etc. I'm afraid Harry's not in the same
> league as any of them, judging only by the first book.)
None of the books you mention are childrens' books -- even Earthsea was a
young adult book that became by book 4 a fully adult book. The others are
adult series. And the more comparable books would be those of Roald Dahl or
the Hobbit (with its stories like Bandobras Took knocking the chief goblin's
head off and into a nearby hole, thereby winning the battle and
simultaneously inventing the game of golf).
I think the best comparison is Lloyd Alexander's Newbery award-winning
Prydain novels, as both series show a hero who grows inexorably in each book
from innocent boy to fully knowing and chastened man (although I hope the
end of HP is not as sad as _The High King_).
Nancy Lebovitz
Ben Kaufman <bb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Bill Van <Bil...@canada.com> wrote in message
>news:BillVan-F4252E...@news.direct.ca...
>>
>> Haven't seen the New Yorker piece, but I'm surprised to hear that. I'm
>> thinking of things like: a simplistic view of magic where you wear a
>> robe and pointy hat and wave your wand, and things happen, instead of a
>> magic that's explained in some internally consistent detail; the sudden
>> appearance of, say, a giant three-headed dog with a cute name with no
>> sense of where such creaturs come from but the plot needs one right now;
>> the off-handed introduction of a dragon, again with no detail of dragon
>> lore and no more reason for its existence than that the plot needed
>> something; the use at crucial plot moments of spells that we haven't
>> heard mention of before.
>
>That's hardly the case in the HP books -- even the first. The giant 3
>headed dog is given a cute name because Hagrid named him -- Hagrid is
>consistently shown as treating monsters as soft, fluffy pets. It's his
>nature. And all the creatures of myth and lengend appear to exist in the HP
>universe -- the muggles just don't know about it.
>
>Lots of dragon lore is given in the books -- particularly HP1 and HP4. In
>HP1, Charlie Weasly is explalined to be officially involved in researching
>dragons. And the dragon doesn't come from a spell, but from an important
>plot point of an evil character making use of another's known weakness.
>
it's possible that Rowling was "working on" it to make the details
emotionally satisfying (I *still* want a Nimbus 2000) and/or funny
at least as much as she was building up a logical structure.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
The calligraphic button website is up!
Buttons at Pennsic: S&M Leather (Booth 119), Plunder Lane
Nancy Lebovitz
Emma Pease <em...@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>It is interesting to note the different terms different newsgroups use
>to call their regulars and also to call their real life gatherings.
>At one time I believe a real life gathering of usenet SF fans was
>called an @ party.
>
Elisabeth Carey
> >because of its popularity.
>
> bothering to even savage the book because of its popularity; but the sense
> of the article was that he would have been just as dismissive of the book
> had it not been popular. (Though he probably wouldn't then have read it
> at all.)
>
> >her credit, I don't believe Joanna Rowlings has any pretension of
> >literariness; she is only writing books she would have like to have read
> >herself and seems to have struck a nerve with the reading public.
>
> the real thrust of Bloom's ire is targeted at the popularity of
> mediocrity. He believes the Potter books to be second-rate, mediocre
> books, and is irritated that millions of kids are reading them instead of
> reading good kids' books. It's an understandable irritation, and I have
> more than a little sympathy with the view. On the other hand, I've read
> my share of fluff without first working my through the canon of Western
> Literature, so my walls are looking pretty vitreous.
Somewhere in the definition of "good kids' books", I think we have to
include some consideration of whether or not kids read and enjoy them.
Harry Potter infects previously resistant kids with the reading virus,
with the consequence that vast numbers of the children reading Harry
Potter are not reading these books *instead of* whatever books Bloom
thinks they should be reading; they are becoming more likely to read
those books *because of* Harry Potter.
> Bloom also seems to be annoyed at the rapturous "it's getting kids to
> read!" tone that so many people take when talking about Potter, and here
> I'm in full agreement with him. Like Bloom, I don't think there's
> anything inherently wonderful about reading in itself -- reading the
> latest issue of People confers no more virtue than watching Entertainment
> Tonight, and less than watching a good movie. Yet people still persist in
> imagining reading to be inherently better than other forms of
> entertainment -- if you proudly proclaim that you never watch TV, people
> nod admiringly; if you just as proudly announce that you never read books,
> people cluck about your militant ignorance. So it's nice to see Bloom
> attacking the false halo of virtuousness that hangs around the Potter
> books.
I don't nod admiringly when someone loudly proclaims that they never
watch tv; I don't currently watch a lot of tv, but I watch some, and
at various periods have watched a lot more. When someone loudly
proclaims that they never watch tv, my reaction is to dump them into
the "intellectual snob" slot that Mr. Bloom is so eager to occupy.
> >What annoyed me was Bloom's sideways attack on Tolkien,
>
> I couldn't tell if he was attacking Tolkien or not. About the most
> derisive he got toward Tolkien was when he referred to the Potter-like
> Tolkien craze of decades past. That might be a shot, or it might just be
> a recitation of history. Hard to tell.
His lack of any real familiarity either with Tolkien, or with
children's fantastic literature, though, stands out crystal-clear. (Or
with children, or with the concerns of parents raising children: he
complains about a lack of sex in a book for and about
eleven-year-olds.)
--
Lis Carey
This post is copyright 2000 by Elisabeth Carey. Permission to
insert links when displaying it is available for $100. Use in
this fashion constitutes acceptance of these terms.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> "Ben Kaufman" <bb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Plus, is the HP series *really* derivative of _Tom Brown's Schooldays_, as
> >Bloom claims? I doubt it. If so:
>
> No; it's derivative of the schoolboy stories which followed TBS. I
> only picked up a copy of the books once, but I immediately saw that it
> was nothing more than Bunter on a broomstick. In fact it's not even up
> to Bunter's standards; it's Enid Blyton writing about The Naughtiest
> Witch in the School.
You know, not having actually read one of the books really does
disqualify you from passing definitive judgment on its quality. Heck,
even Bloom read _one_ of th books.
> jds
> --
> Can more than 35 million book buyers, and their offspring, be wrong? Yes,
> they have been, and will continue to be so for as long as they persevere
> with Potter.
> - Harold Bloom
Can Harold Bloom be wrong? Obviously not; just ask him and he'll
explain that his literary judgment really is infallible.
Joe Slater
>> No; it's derivative of the schoolboy stories which followed TBS. I
>> only picked up a copy of the books once, but I immediately saw that it
>> was nothing more than Bunter on a broomstick. In fact it's not even up
>> to Bunter's standards; it's Enid Blyton writing about The Naughtiest
>> Witch in the School.
Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>You know, not having actually read one of the books really does
>disqualify you from passing definitive judgment on its quality.
I'm intimately familiar with the genre, and I am therefore more
qualified to comment on its generic quality than most USAns.
>Heck, even Bloom read _one_ of th books.
I did leaf through it.
snark^
warbled on about "Re: Bloom v. Potter" in rec.arts.sf.written <<=
> Estraven <estr...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> <snip>
> > It is also clear from Hagrid's response in book 1 that the Dursleys were
> > generally expected to educate Harry on his heritage. This suggests that
> > the wizards in charge that decision didn't know the Dursleys too well.
>
> I've just discovered an unused "of" beside my keyboard, which I overlooked
> when assembling the above.
Shhh! If you'd just quietly swept it under the keyboard no one would have
noticed...
snark^ (whose keyboard is propped up so high it obscures the screen).
--
"And to close on, the Usenet Dept. of Small Consolations. Some kibologist
just figured out that if you allow for every troll and spammer and net.kook
a space one KB by two you could store them all on the six hundred forty
Gigabyte HDD space of the news server at zanzibar.com."
Michael Hargreave Mawson
<lis....@mediaone.net> writes
>I don't nod admiringly when someone loudly proclaims that they never
>watch tv; I don't currently watch a lot of tv, but I watch some, and
>at various periods have watched a lot more. When someone loudly
>proclaims that they never watch tv, my reaction is to dump them into
>the "intellectual snob" slot that Mr. Bloom is so eager to occupy.
When people do surveys of TV-watching in this country, they tend to
categorise people by the channel they watch most - BBC1, BBC2, ITV or C4
(no-one watches C5). Broadly, the categories go like this:
BBC1 - "middle-brow"
BBC2 - "high-brow"
ITV - "low-brow"
C4 - "alternative"
I come out as "high-brow". The reason for this is that, in addition to
classical music concerts, earnest documentaries and other such things,
BBC2 is also the home of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Star Trek" (all
variants), "Third Rock From the Sun", "Have I got News for You" and
"Never Mind the Buzzcocks". :-)
ATB
--
Mike
"His wish was to become a historian - not to dig out facts and store
them in himself... but to understand them, call the dead back to life
and let them speak through him to their descendants. She sometimes
wondered who would pay for it and who would heed."
- from "Harvest of Stars" by Poul Anderson.
Jaquandor
>>> No; it's derivative of the schoolboy stories which followed TBS. I
>>> only picked up a copy of the books once, but I immediately saw that it
>>> was nothing more than Bunter on a broomstick. In fact it's not even up
>>> to Bunter's standards; it's Enid Blyton writing about The Naughtiest
>>> Witch in the School.
>
>Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>You know, not having actually read one of the books really does
>>disqualify you from passing definitive judgment on its quality.
>
>I'm intimately familiar with the genre, and I am therefore more
>qualified to comment on its generic quality than most USAns.
That's only half the battle. If you haven't read the book in question, then you
are not qualified to judge it, no matter how familiar you may be with its
particular genre. Until you read the book in its entirety I will hold your
opinion on it in abeyance.
>>Heck, even Bloom read _one_ of th books.
>
>I did leaf through it.
To what extent? A few minutes standing in a bookstore? It seems to me that this
is rather like saying (to give a clearly exaggerated example, for illustrative
purposes) "Well, I leafed through 'Hamlet', and as I am quite familiar with
Elizabethan drama, I can say that it's not up to snuff."
Evelyn C. Leeper
Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix3.netaxs.com> wrote:
> In article <slrn8o9mr...@hypatia.Stanford.EDU>,
> Emma Pease <em...@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >
> >It is interesting to note the different terms different newsgroups use
> >to call their regulars and also to call their real life gatherings.
> >At one time I believe a real life gathering of usenet SF fans was
> >called an @ party.
> >
> I think they were called @-sign parties.
They were called "at-sign parties" which could be written either way,
depending on whether you pronounced "@" as "at" or "at-sign".
--
Evelyn C. Leeper, http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
I do not try to dance better than anyone else. I only try to dance
better than myself. --Mikhail Baryshnikov
Ron Henry
>Bitstring <39824D...@wizvax.net> from the wonderful Sea Wasp
>> Bloom has always been a self-important windbag, but this is one of
>>his more annoying screeds.
>
>Sounds like litcrit snobbery, tempered by a fair admixture of jealousy.
>Just as well JKR is a nice lady, or she'd buy his newspaper and fire him
>(she could probably afford it before long).
Not to make anyone sweat any more virtual beads, but Harold Bloom hardly
depends on The Washington Post (or another other paper or magazine where his
essays might appear) for his living.
He's a rather famous literature professor and literary critic (last I knew he
was ensconsed in what I assume was a lucrative endowed chair at Yale) who has
put out a ton of influential criticism, critical editions, and collections of
essays on canonical works of literature -- and who no doubt commands a hefty
speaking fee for lecturing. In lit-crit, he's nationally famous.
He's the kind of guy who makes (literary writers' and poets') careers, not
who's trying to make one of his own. His strong words about Rowling's books
(and concern only with a work within the narrow focus that he wants to discuss
-- here basically a Tolkien template) are pretty typical of his strong words
and focused/narrow scope on whatever he writes, in my experience.
Ron "ex-English major and one-time clerical worker at Yale's Sterling Library"
Henry
--
Ron Henry ronh...@clarityconnect.com
http://people2.clarityconnect.com/webpages6/ronhenry/
Ron Henry
>cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Cambias) wrote:
>>Harold Bloom (Yale, not dead) is a Shakespeare scholar who
>>isn't quite as allergic to pop culture as his article might imply. He
>>wrote a gushing piece about "Shakespeare in Love" for Newsweek, I think.
>
>And his list of greatest novels of the Western Canon include several
>science fiction titles, incluing LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness.
Well, heck -- Harold Bloom himself has written a (supposedly quite bizarre
and not terribly good) fantasy novel himself, _The Flight to Lucifer_. I own a
copy but have never been able to find the right mood to actually open it up
and slog through it.
Ron
Niall McAuley
>In lit-crit, he's nationally famous.
That's what the GSV said: lit-crit snobbery. Look at this for a sentence:
[Mr. Bloom writes:]
"And yet I feel a discomfort with the Harry Potter mania, and I hope that
my discontent is not merely a highbrow snobbery, or a nostalgia for a
more literate fantasy to beguile (shall we say) intelligent children of all ages."
What a maroon.
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es.invalid]
Robert Barrett
: Others may refute, but I happen to agree, entirely. I'd put it even
: more broadly and say that since the French roman nouveau period,
: narrative, or storytelling has become essentially a negative for modern
: academia. It's presence signposts 'downmarket.'
Which parts of modern academia? As you point out below, there's a large
crowd of academics, represented by critics like Bloom, who by and large
reject all and any aspects of post-structuralism and modernism for
aesthetic-political reasons. Then there are those, like many medievalists
(the field of which I'm part) and other scholars working in pre-twentieth
century fields, who routinely work with narrative b/c, well, that's what
the extant texts present them with. Then there are scholars of twentieth
century literature (like my life partner, a feminist/women's studies
critic) who work with narrative in contemporary lit and actually teach
courses on how narratives are constructed. Narratology is alive and well
in a great many literary theory classes.
This is not to say that a very vocal and sizeable contingent of the modern
academy dislikes narrative and prefers other fare. Nor that those who do
like narrative are above using deconstructivist and other
post-structuralist approaches to traditional narratives when it suits
their purpose. But I do wish that we could dispense with
characterizations of twentieth- and (now) twenty-first century English
professors as foes of narrative. It just doesn't wash.
: The odd thing here is that Harold Bloom is actually something of a
: -defender- of narrative verve against post-structuralist readings of
: works.
Well, true, but in many ways it's a position he's adopted within the last
10-15 years (at least in terms of his high profile work of that period).
This is a man who made his name in the field by writing what were (at the
time) highly influential readings of literary tradition as an Oedipal
battleground between metaphorical fathers (older authors) and sons (their
successors). There's a selection of his work in one of the main
anthologies of post-structuralist theory (*Critical Theory Since 1965*),
suggesting that it's easy to see his ideas as complementary to
post-structuralist approaches.
This is why (ob this thread) the last paragraph of his critique of *Harry
Potter* sets off alarm bells for me. When he ends an essay on the *Harry
Potter* phenomenon (displaying in large part his careless reading of
Tolkien, but then as the introductions to his Chelsea House criticism
anthology series show, he's generally very careless about reading quite a
few authors) by making snide jibes at those political, leftist professors
who have so dumbed down the canon by letting every piece of trash
literature and mindless flush into the classroom, that suggests to me that
his attack on *Harry Potter* is something he sees as part and parcel of
his debate with other academics. In that context, poor little Harry can't
win--he's just another dagger in the still-twitching corpse of Western
Literature. <heavy sarcasm on>Poor, benighted children will read them,
and trendy professors will thus teach *Potter* in Multicultural Texts
surveys in order to pad their enrollments, killing humanist order, human
truth, and Bloom's beloved Shakespeare in the process.<heavy sarcasm off>
Now that's another debate entirely, and not one for this forum. But it
does (a) seem to me like a valid analysis of Bloom's ultimate purpose in
writing the piece and (b) suggest that many (obviously not all or even a
majority) of SF readers might be somewhat dubious about Bloom's
"inclusion" of a few SF works in his rather idiosyncratic *Western Canon*.
Best,
Rob
--
Robert W. Barrett, Jr. * E-mail: rbar...@dept.english.upenn.edu * World
Wide Web: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~rbarrett/index.html * Dept. of
English, Univ. of Pennsylvania * "What makes the muskrat guard his musk?
Courage!" The Cowardly Lion (Bert Lahr), *The Wizard of Oz* (1939)
Nancy Lebovitz
<gk...@home.nospam.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>Stephen King, by the way, has just weighed in (and cannot be unaware
>that his name comes up often in Rowlingtalk) and opined that the books
>are splendidly entertaining without much significance. His argument is
I think they've got at least a moderate amount of significance. There's
a lot in them about having to act with incomplete information, and getting
more information as you can. They're sane about appearance--beauty matters,
but not as much as friendship, loyalty, skill, and politics. They're good
about people trying to do things well, but making mistakes because the
world is like that.
>that British fantasy is GOOD at being lightly entertaining and can go
>wrong when it gets weighty. (He maligns SHARDIK in that context.)
>
>This, more or less, is the 'middle ground' I mentioned in my first
>posting.
Ron Henry
>And, as (I think) Sea Wasp noted, some of his claims are simply
>stupid. Watching the movie version of _The Wizard of Oz_ better than
>reading the book? Granted, making Oz a hallucinogenic nightmare,
>rather than a real place, might very well suit the sensibilities of
>some twit who's in thrall to the cult of realism, but it hardly makes
>the movie a better work.
Well, it depends on what you're looking for.
I suspect the psychological implications of the movie version's plot, and the
formal manifestations of Dorothy's psychology in her "dream" of Oz, are much
more interesting to a critic with Bloom's history of interests than
straightforward fantasy would be.
Jaquandor
>has offered
>
>'little formal assessment
>> of
>> the work in question. His article is mainly a collection of "Isn't it
>terrible
>> what people are reading these days" platitudes, putting forth no real
>> summation
>
>then you do not HAVE to end up with the ad hominem silliness
> ... you have refuted the THESIS and that, surely, is the point of the
>exercise. My point was that time wasted on saying 'he's a jealous old
>snob' misses the point. Isn't it far more effective to refute (if
>possible?) than to insult the critic?
It certainly is. I haven't called Bloom any type of snob, although others have.
Honestly, this particular article is the only thing by Bloom I have ever read,
so I am in no position to attack him. But it also seems to me that his article
is, itself, mostly ad hominem in nature; what little literary commentary is
there certainly seems faulty, as has been shown by others. It may not be up to
snuff logically, but some part of me still sees at least a tiny bit of validity
in the "pinprick in the balloon" approach to such a perfect example of pious
pontification.
>Stephen King, by the way, has just weighed in (and cannot be unaware
>that his name comes up often in Rowlingtalk) and opined that the books
>are splendidly entertaining without much significance. His argument is
>that British fantasy is GOOD at being lightly entertaining and can go
>wrong when it gets weighty. (He maligns SHARDIK in that context.)
Interesting, that. Not having seen King's full exegesis of his opinion, I'd
wonder what it is about British fantasy specifically that leads him to this
conclusion. Does he think that American fantasy gets it better? (Or, dare I
ask, Canadian fantasy? :)
Jaquandor
>I saw _The Wizard of Oz_ on the big screen. Magical! The transition
>from black & white Kansas to colored Oz really worked. And the detail
>on the matte paintings and the like, which you just can't see on
>television. It was just freakin' amazing.
I agree entirely! Like just about every other American kid, I grew up watching
"Oz" every March (or so) on CBS, but I never found the movie as involving as
when my wife and I saw it in the theater two years ago. Man, I wish more old
movies would be re-released. I can't believe the local MegaUltraPlex really
needs to show "X-Men" on four (out of twenty) screens. Not after the first
week, anyhow.
Jaquandor
Yeah! Shouldn't you be doing something else? (Say, writing something?)
Nancy Lebovitz
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:51:53 GMT, <gk...@home.nospam.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>You see, as a parent I concur (generally) with the
>>anything-that-gets-them-reading notion, though with headshakes at some
>
>Why?
>
>Honestly, so long as a child has good reading comprehension, so that
>he or she can make his or her way in the world, why does it matter if
>the child prefers reading over Nintendo as recreation? Granted, a
Reading opens up more possibilities than Nintendo.
I wouldn't use that argument against a more open-ended hobby, though.
>child should know how to read, and should be pretty good at it, but
>why is reading for recreation intrinsically better than any other
>recreation?
>
>>BUT that is not Harold Bloom's job. His job (as he sees it, and to
>>which he has dedicated his professional career) is to try to identify
>>and celebrate literary excellence (a rare skill, and something he's
>>very good at), and to identify and expose works that lack that
>>excellence.
>>
>>Think about it. If Bloom had written a screed denouncing a Jackie
>>Collins novel as not being good literature (or a Babysitter's Club
>>kidlit book) would anyone be saying he was wrong - OR defending that
>>attack by saying 'anything that gets people reading'?
>
>No. Rather, I would say that Bloom had missed the point. Can I
>change the example to David Weber, just to make it on-topic? It
I *think* Rowling is on-topic here.
>strikes me that denouncing David Weber (or Jackie Collins) for not
>producing "literary excellence" is kind of like denouncing a McDonalds
>quarter pounder with cheese for not being a delicious Caesar Salad,
>made the right way, raw eggs and all. Of course it's not a Caesar
>Salad! If the customer had wanted Caesar Salad, the customer would
>have gone to a restaurant that served such fare.
Kevin J. Maroney
>Bloom also seems to be annoyed at the rapturous "it's getting kids to
>read!" tone that so many people take when talking about Potter, and here
>I'm in full agreement with him. Like Bloom, I don't think there's
>anything inherently wonderful about reading in itself -- reading the
>latest issue of People confers no more virtue than watching Entertainment
>Tonight, and less than watching a good movie.
Back in early 1998, I asked, on rec.arts.sf.fandom, a similar
question, and got a very thoughtful reply from my wife, Bernadette
Bosky, who (among her many other jobs) tutors in English. My questions
are in >; Bernadette's reply is unmarked.
***
>This is a serious question. Is it better that a child (or older
>person) be reading, well, for want of a better word, crap, than to not
>be reading at all?
Kevin, my beloved, I don't think you would ask this if you
worked with a number of kids who don't read at all, as I do.
Even reading crap will
improve their vocabularies
familiarize them with sentence structure
give practice in word recognition
give practice in inferring information from text
provide patterning for their own writing sentences &c.
I actually have a selfish interest in bright kids who don't
read at all before I start tutoring them, because they improve with
amazing speed and make me look good. But my experience does show that
any reading will to some extent help with other reading & with
writing.
>After all, if good books can better us, cannot bad books worsen us?
>And if someone develops a habit for reading only crap, might that not
>prove a worse impediment to reading good works than a habit for
>reading nothing?
In my experience, no and no. I suppose bad books do encourage
certain sloppy or bad kinds of thinking, but then in my experience
most kids discover those kinds of sloppy thnking on their own and
practice them quite well with no reading at all. And I think that
reading crap does develop a taste for crap, which is worse than a
taste for good reading, but is *not* worse than a taste for no
reading. If you develop a taste for crap, you may or may not develop
a taste for better writing. If you don't learn how to read easily
(ie, automatically, which comes only with practice), you *will not*
develop a taste for good writing.
>These are, I assure you, real questions, though they might seem
>rhetorical.
No, I think they are valid questions to ask; I just think the
answers are pretty clear.
***
Now, there was one question I didn't ask, or an elaboration I should
have made. When I asked "cannot bad books worsen us", I was clearly
asking, and Bernadette was clearly answering, about books that are
poorly crafted. There are, in addition to those, books which actively
teach bad lessons--_The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ or _The
Turner Diaries_ or _Why's It's a Good Idea to Set Fire to Your
Parent's Bed While They Sleep in It_ (okay, that last one was made
up). But I don't think anyone could make a sustained argument that, on
the whole, the Harry Potter books teach active evil in that way.
--
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@crossover.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor, New York Review of Science Fiction
<http://www.nyrsf.com>
Kevin J. Maroney
>Off on a slightly different tack. Bloom mentions "The Wind in the
>Willows" and the "Alice" books as superior fare for children. Books that
>are, IMO, close to the top of the table in the "'Children's Books' Loved
>by Adults and Ignored by Children" league.
Perhaps in your universe. I read the _Alice_ books over and over and
over when I was a child, and I was not one of those children who
extensively read adult literature; the same was true of my siblings.
Most of my childhood friends didn't read books at all, so I can't
compare.
The people I know who are most fond of _The Wind in the Willows_ all
first read it as children.
Evelyn C. Leeper
Kevin J. Maroney <kmar...@crossover.com> wrote:
>
> Now, there was one question I didn't ask, or an elaboration I should
> have made. When I asked "cannot bad books worsen us", I was clearly
> asking, and Bernadette was clearly answering, about books that are
> poorly crafted. There are, in addition to those, books which actively
> teach bad lessons--_The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ or _The
> Turner Diaries_ or _Why's It's a Good Idea to Set Fire to Your
> Parent's Bed While They Sleep in It_ (okay, that last one was made
> up). But I don't think anyone could make a sustained argument that, on
> the whole, the Harry Potter books teach active evil in that way.
You must not have read the article
at http://www.prospect.org/webarchives/00-07/mooney-c0711.html
about all the lessons in HP.
Or the article at theonion.com
:-)
GSV Three Minds in a Can
<til...@aztec.asu.edu> asserted
>
>
>For those coming in late, Bloom's now-infamous anti-HP screed
>is at, hmm -- well, there's a link at Locus:
>
> http://www.locusmag.com/Whatsnew.html
>
>(BTW, this is the same article that the WSJ ran a couple
>wks ago)
>
>-- along with tons of other HP stuff.
>
>The NYer review (mentioned @ bottom of quoted post)
>notes that Rowling had sold 30 million copies of HP 1-3,
>plus what, 5 MM HP-4's in the first week? So, 'he's jealous'
>may not be unreasonable.... it is a pretty mean-spirited
>piece.
<Snip>
The release of #4 in HB has pushed #s 1-3 to the top of the Uk paperback
charts again, plus #1-3 are back in the Uk HB top 10 best sellers, so is
the 'deluxe' HB edition of #1. (That means she currently has 5/10 places
in the UK HB top10, which must be some sort of record). 'Jealous' sounds
pretty understandable to me.
--
Jaquandor
>have to wonder why some owner of a mega-multiplex doesn't get the idea
>of reserving one screen for a reshowing of an older film. If nothing
>else, it would bring some people into the theater who aren't
>interested in seeing stuff Blow'd Up.
Exactly. I especially have to wonder when I attend an afternoon screening and
am joined by less than fifteen people, in an auditorium that seats two hundred.
But then, I suppose I'd start by being happy if theater owners would stop
putting dimmer bulbs in their projectors, turning the sound either down too far
to hear or so far up that even the tender love scenes sound like the Coming of
the Great Buffalo Herd, and dealing appropriately with talking patrons.
Sigh....
Jaquandor
>wrote:
>
>>
>>She does. And how! Book 4 is fantastic (a review is coming forthwith,
>>having finished it this morning).
>>
>
> I think "fantastic" to describe Harry Potter 4 is too mild a
>description.
Is anyone here privy to the reactions of kids to HP4? <<Acckk, I just used one
of those Godawful initial/number shorthand things like they've been using in
movies recently -- ID4, T2, MI2, etc....Accckkk!!>>
Anyway, I finished it the other day, and there is some surprisingly grim stuff
in that book. I wonder how the little tykes are taking it? Are any of them
having nightmares? Or is it the case that kids are actually a bit more
resilient than many give them credit for?
Nancy Lebovitz
>Now, there was one question I didn't ask, or an elaboration I should
>have made. When I asked "cannot bad books worsen us", I was clearly
>asking, and Bernadette was clearly answering, about books that are
>poorly crafted. There are, in addition to those, books which actively
>teach bad lessons--_The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ or _The
>Turner Diaries_ or _Why's It's a Good Idea to Set Fire to Your
>Parent's Bed While They Sleep in It_ (okay, that last one was made
But, but...._Uncle Shelby's ABZ Book_ is a *good* book.
>up). But I don't think anyone could make a sustained argument that, on
>the whole, the Harry Potter books teach active evil in that way.
>
Matthew Austern
> Bloom's article is as pompously mean-spirited and completely
> wrong-headed as anything I've ever seen in print. He makes our friend
> Imperialist look open-minded and reasonable. It's tremendously ironic
> that such a close-minded man would be the author of a book entitled
> "The Closing of the American Mind".
It's even more ironic that the author of "The Closing of the American
Mind" was so prescient that he could write a review of a book that
came out seven years after he died.
Shannon
>Anyway, I finished it the other day, and there is some surprisingly grim stuff
>in that book. I wonder how the little tykes are taking it? Are any of them
>having nightmares? Or is it the case that kids are actually a bit more
>resilient than many give them credit for?
I've been wondering that myself. Some of that book is rather
startlingly dark compared to the previous books. I don't know that
it's nightmare material, but I was always a weird kid who liked creepy
things, so my assessment of how a kid will react (based on what I know
of myself at that age) is probably not very accurate. Unfortunately
only two children that I know (at least that I know of) are reading
the Harry Potter books. One of them is still in book 2, and the other
is still in book 1.
Shannon
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Henry <ronh...@clarityconnect.com> asserted
>GSV Three Minds in a Can <G...@quik.freeuk.com> was introduced by Alex Trebek
>
>>> Bloom has always been a self-important windbag, but this is one of
>>>his more annoying screeds.
>>
>>Sounds like litcrit snobbery, tempered by a fair admixture of jealousy.
>>Just as well JKR is a nice lady, or she'd buy his newspaper and fire him
>>(she could probably afford it before long).
>He's a rather famous literature professor and literary critic (last I knew he
>was ensconsed in what I assume was a lucrative endowed chair at Yale) who has
>put out a ton of influential criticism, critical editions, and collections of
>essays on canonical works of literature -- and who no doubt commands a hefty
Ah, that explains why I have never heard of the dude .. the whole
concept of a 'career' (paid for by the taxpayer?) deciding what is great
literature and what isn't gives me severe oscillation in the munitions
bays. As a socially useful profession, it has to be right up there with
.. nah, don't want to offend all the lawyers and politicians ..
Lisa Hertel
the Whales") where Kirk proclaims he'd read all the 'greats' of the 20th
century: Jackie Collins, Harold Robbins...
I agree with Bloom that HP isn't great literature. Frankly, many
children's books aren't great literature, simply because they are
'dumbed down' a bit. Thus, the use of cliches. I believe Rowlings
deliberately chose to write a children's book. Setting it at a boarding
school is common in English children's literature, as is the lack of
sex. (American YA stuff tends to have more kissing, or interest in such,
at least on girls' parts.)
Yes, Rowlings is derivative--I can understand Bloom comparing Dumbledore
to Gandalf (the all-knowing mentor). I suspect her writing is more
reminiscent of Roald Dahl or Diana Wynne Jones, but Bloom probably
hasn't read them. But the morals are positive, the books enjoyable (so
is Stephen King), and it's something that most kids will understand and
relate to (inspite of strictly-English references, such as dessert
always being 'pudding'). At least it isn't harmful, and--who knows?--it
might lead to something better.
--Lisa Hertel
Dr Nuncheon
Shannon <sr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>jaqu...@aol.com (Jaquandor) wrote:
>
>>Anyway, I finished it the other day, and there is some surprisingly grim stuff
>>in that book. I wonder how the little tykes are taking it? Are any of them
>>having nightmares? Or is it the case that kids are actually a bit more
>>resilient than many give them credit for?
>
>I've been wondering that myself. Some of that book is rather
>startlingly dark compared to the previous books. I don't know that
>it's nightmare material, but I was always a weird kid who liked creepy
>things, so my assessment of how a kid will react (based on what I know
>of myself at that age) is probably not very accurate.
Based on the comment that the HP books are getting better by the book and
this one, I may need to read past the first one.
Anyway, I never minded the 'creepy stuff' as a kid - I loved Roald Dahl,
for instance. In fact, I think the comment about kids' resilience is
right on, and a lot of the worry is from overprotective parents who don't
remember what it was like being a kid.
J
--
INTERNET SEEMS TO BE FULL OF MILLIONS OF | Jeff Johnston
IDIOTS & LUNATICS ! ! - c2 (ts...@my-deja.com) | jeffj @ io . com
Kevin J. Maroney
[Guy Kay wrote:]
>>Damn. This is becoming distractingly engaging.
>
>Yeah! Shouldn't you be doing something else? (Say, writing something?)
Well, I'm not caught up on him yet. So he can take some time off, it's
okay.
Christopher L. Taylor
>
> In article <d7uaos8b7i3gidull...@4ax.com>,
> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:51:53 GMT, <gk...@home.nospam.com.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>You see, as a parent I concur (generally) with the
> >>anything-that-gets-them-reading notion, though with headshakes at some
> >
> >Why?
> >
> >Honestly, so long as a child has good reading comprehension, so that
> >he or she can make his or her way in the world, why does it matter if
> >the child prefers reading over Nintendo as recreation? Granted, a
>
> Reading opens up more possibilities than Nintendo.
>
> I wouldn't use that argument against a more open-ended hobby, though.
>
This is an argument that the people here probably want to believe,
since we all (mostly) have the love of reading in common. But there
is a large variety of Nintendo games available, and many of them are
multi-player games, allowing more face-to-face human interaction
than reading does. You might argue that kids who play nintendo get
better socialized than those who stay home reading. All the geeks
please raise your hand (raises hand). But I think Pete's right here,
it's just a value judgement. We here on this newsgroup value reading
more than we value hand-eye coordination, and everything we say in
support of that is an attempt to justify it after the fact.
I'm not of the right generation to report it first hand, but people
have told me that the attitude towards kids reading many years ago
was the same as the attitude toward kids watching TV -- it'll rot
the brain, why aren't they out doing something active, not passive,
etc....
-- Chris Taylor
Jaquandor
>[Guy Kay wrote:]
>>>Damn. This is becoming distractingly engaging.
>>
>>Yeah! Shouldn't you be doing something else? (Say, writing something?)
>
>Well, I'm not caught up on him yet. So he can take some time off, it's
>okay.
Silence, foul tempter!
Jaquandor
>the Whales") where Kirk proclaims he'd read all the 'greats' of the 20th
>century: Jackie Collins, Harold Robbins...
Ooooooooooh! A nit for me to pick!! It was Jacqueline Susann, actually.
>I agree with Bloom that HP isn't great literature.
It seems to me that the only real arbiter of greatness, in the end, is Time. If
kids thirty or forty years from now are reading HP, then it seems to me some
bit of greatness would apply to them. However, Bloom may be proven right
eventually. I can see a conversation between a couple of long-in-the-tooth
rasfw denizens, in the year 2044:
"Hey, remember them Harvey Pooter books?"
"Yep. But I think it was Potter. Maybe Harry."
"Yep. Them was the days. But that Allan Bloom was right on."
"Harold."
"Whatever. Say, has Book 47 of Wheel o'Time come out yet?"
"Yep. I'm on page 2657, and I don't see how he's goin' to resolve all this in
the next four pages."
"Oh, don't worry 'bout that. After Jordan passed, they commissioned Neal
Stephenson to finish it. He can wrap up any plot in four pages."
<<flipping of pages>>
"Well, I'll be!"
Ron Henry
>However, I am well comforted by the fact that the Oz books will
>beguile and amaze readers long after Professor Bloom is but a footnote
>in a dusty volume about the history of literary criticism.
Well... one hopes that will be so, but I would (sadly) put money on the movie
long outlasting either Baum or Bloom in the public memory.
Ron Henry
> the whole
>concept of a 'career' (paid for by the taxpayer?) deciding what is great
>literature and what isn't gives me severe oscillation in the munitions
>bays. As a socially useful profession, it has to be right up there with
>... nah, don't want to offend all the lawyers and politicians ..
<blink, blink> Being a literary scholar is in and of itself offensive?
Wow.
And I doubt any of his endowed chair at Yale is paid for by the taxpayer, with
all those rich alumni making charitable contributions. If he were a
researcher in the sciences, it would seem a lot more likely. <shrug>
Shannon
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> was introduced by Alex Trebek before choosing "Usable Usenet" for $100:
>
>>However, I am well comforted by the fact that the Oz books will
>>beguile and amaze readers long after Professor Bloom is but a footnote
>>in a dusty volume about the history of literary criticism.
>
>Well... one hopes that will be so, but I would (sadly) put money on the movie
>long outlasting either Baum or Bloom in the public memory.
>
>Ron
It's funny, I think the message of the movie version was completely
lost on me. I pooh-poohed the whole dream explanation. *Dorothy*
knew the truth, and *Toto* knew the truth, and so did I, and it didn't
matter one little bit to me that she couldn't have been in Oz and
laying there in bed too. It never even occurred to me that it was a
dream. I just thought the grown ups didn't understand, they weren't
there, they didn't *know.* :)
Shannon
Del Cotter
Joe Slater <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>You know, not having actually read one of the books really does
>>disqualify you from passing definitive judgment on its quality.
>
>I'm intimately familiar with the genre, and I am therefore more
>qualified to comment on its generic quality than most USAns.
I see. Having assumed it to be an example of the genre, you don't have
to read it to find out whether or not you were right, or even whether it
might not be a good example of the genre. Familiarity with the field
confers the power of X-ray vision on you, to see through the cover and
make your judgement, to be passed on to the plebs who only *read* it?
(Hint: they're not all Americans, and many of them will, strangely
enough, be as familiar with the genre as you are)
>I did leaf through it.
Wow.
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:edDays:ColinGreenlandTakeBackPlenty:JonathanRabanBadLand:EricIdleTh
eRoadToMars:JohnBarnesApocalypses&Apostrophes:MichaelConeyHelloSummerGoodbye
ToRead:WalterMMillerJrStLeibowitz&TWHW:IainBanksWhit:SMStirlingAgainstTheTid
Sea Wasp
> Briefly: I'd simply say that if you demonstrate effectively that 'Bloom
> has offered
>
> 'little formal assessment
> > of
> > the work in question. His article is mainly a collection of "Isn't it terrible
> > what people are reading these days" platitudes, putting forth no real
> > summation
> > of what he takes to be Rowling's shortcomings,'
>
> then you do not HAVE to end up with the ad hominem silliness
> ... you have refuted the THESIS and that, surely, is the point of the
> exercise.
No, the POINT is to FIRST destroy his thesis, THEN blast his image to
ashes. And hopefully flame him in person as well, but that's just a
bonus. Probably one never to be realized, since unlike Eric Flint or
Stirling, he seems very unlikely to come around for personal
barbeques.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Sea Wasp
Alright already, I've progressed to flagellating myself with a cat o'
nine-tails with nuclear tips.