Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #4--Will HP become classic?
caliburncy
caliburncy at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 22 16:16:35 UTC 2002
No: HPFGUIDX 38049
Greetings!
Yes, Luke of the Long and Rambling HP Essays is back out from behind
his backstage curtain as a List Elf, once again posting here on the
main list. . . . And what is the impetus for this momentous occasion
(perhaps dreaded by many members who hoped he had finally shut up)?
Why, to bring you the next in our official set of discussion
questions, of course!
All these questions are from Philip Nel's book "JK Rowling's Harry
Potter Novels: A Reader's Guide", which you can check out here:
http://www.continuumbooks.com/prev.cgi?bk_id=2431.
And the full list of discussion questions (used with permission) can
be found here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Discussion%
20Summaries/DISCUSSION%20QUESTIONS%20FROM%20PHILIP%20NEL.htm.
For those keeping track, this week's question, although fourth in our
order of presentation, is actually question eleven in the book itself
and in the full list referenced above.
--------------------------------------
Now then, on to THE QUESTION itself.
Philip Nel writes:
--------------------------------------
Nigel Newton, the chief executive of Bloomsbury Publishing, has
predicted the HP books "will still be bought for children in 100
years' time." (Prynn). Is he merely promoting his company's
interests? Will the Potter novels be classics? What do they share
in common with other classics? In your answer, decide how you'll
define the word 'classic.' Does it denote 'classic literature for
children,' 'classic fantasy,' 'classic British literature'?
Something else? In defining the term, choose some points of
comparison. If you think they are classics, are we to compare the
novels with works by Lewis Carroll? C.S. Lewis? Charles Dickens?
If not, what would be your point of comparison? Enid Blyton?
Against what other works are we to measure the HP series? What are
the criteria of a classic?
---------------------------------------------------
And, as if that wasn't enough to chew on already,
here are my own FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS:
---------------------------------------------------
1) Many of our most classic stories--and by this we refer to oral
tradition stories such as the Arthurian legends or fairy tales--are
archetypal in nature. Consider the possible interplay between
archetypes and classic books. How many classics that are 'more
modern', such as the works of Dickens or Tolkien or Roald Dahl (all
of which Harry Potter often garners comparison to), play to similar
archetypes as those oral tradition stories? Are archetypes a 'free
ticket' to becoming a classic, or do only some archetypal stories
succeed? If the latter, why perhaps--beyond the fickle fancies of
the marketplace--do some succeed and others not? What in Harry
Potter's use of archetypes may have caused it to fall in
the 'successful' category?
2) People often describe a classic as being 'timeless', and the
implication of this statement is that whatever appeal the book has,
it cannot be limited to a particular generation. Therefore, it is
reasonable enough to assume that a book that is pure social
commentary--for example, a fictional retelling of originally factual
events where the characters are clearly intended to resemble present-
day celebrities--is unlikely to continue to appeal to later
generations who are unfamiliar with those references (celebrities, in
the example), unless the book holds some appeal that can still be
gleaned without understanding the particulars of the social
commentary. Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland is instructive here,
as a story which includes many references to contemporary politics
but which has nevertheless outlasted the issues to which it referred,
simply because it can be read on many other levels besides the social
commentary. Does Harry Potter contain any possible social
commentary, or is it more concerned with 'timeless' matters of the
human condition? If it does contain any social commentary, is this
the sort that is only of value if read as an indictment of certain
present-day issues, or does it continue to hold appeal even without
such comparisons?
3) Although sometimes classics are 'created', by school teachers and
university professors who find them of value and therefore add them
to the curriculum for the sake of their students, the vast majority
of classics are spread through a form of evangelism which occurs
between family and friends. In short: word of mouth, a phenomenon
that is largely responsible for Harry Potter's success in the first
place. But for Harry Potter to become classic, this word of mouth
must be persistent throughout multiple generations: the children of
today, once adults, must share it with the children of tomorrow.
This is true even if you do not view Harry Potter as a children's
book, because adults sharing it only with similarly-aged adults will
still technically cause the book to die with that particular age
group. So even if the aforementioned "children of tomorrow" are, in
fact, adults at the time they first read Harry Potter, this
generational interplay is still potentially necessary. Does Harry
Potter have the potential to achieve this cross-generational
sharing? How might Harry Potter's existing cross-generational appeal
be indicative of this?
4) One complaint frequently lodged against Harry Potter (aside from
allegedly promoting witchcraft and/or not possessing 'true' literary
merit) is the assertion that Harry Potter is basically derivative of
its preceeding works. Are these claims valid? More importantly, are
they even relevant? Most persons involved in the literary world will
tell you that, while obviously something can be clearly derived from
other works in almost plagiaristic fashion and/or can be heavily
dependent upon cliche, there is no story in existence that is
truly "original". Consider the difference between a derivitave work
and an archetypal one. Which term is most accurately applied to
Harry Potter? Will Harry Potter's alleged lack of "originality" be
detrimental to its eventually becoming classic? In other words, will
its more "original" predecessors outlast it, once the newness of
Harry Potter has worn off, or does Harry Potter hold something
special to set it apart?
----------------------------------------------
For a cursory and haphazard overview of some
past discussion on this topic, check out the
following BACK MESSAGES:
----------------------------------------------
Quick preamble: One of the reasons I am so excited about this
particular discussion question is that, believe it or not, we've
really never discussed it in depth before. Yes, I scoured the
archives, both here and in the separate Archives group, and as far as
I can tell this has only been indirectly raised via discussion of the
backlash against HP's popularity, the classification of HP (genre and
age), the literary merit of HP, comparisons of HP to other works,
HP's universal appeal, etc--all of which have some bearing on this
topic, but do not directly address the topic itself. And even in
those fairly rare instances of indirect addressal (with regards to
HP's status as a classic), the tendency leans toward very short
statements of opinion, rather than rough-and-tumble debate, or even
sustained discussion.
Perhaps this is a failing of any fandom, that we can't really sustain
discussion on a "merit-based, self-evaluation" topic like this . . .
but I don't really buy that. Not with this group. We've responded
level-headedly (including consideration and even concession of some
of the points made) to the oft inflammatory drop-ins from anti-
Potterites. We've firmly asserted that heavy analysis and nitpicking
and even criticism do not in any way deny our status as "fans", and
we therefore engage in these activities on a regular and obsessive
basis. And most importantly, we are never all of one mind on
*anything*. So my hope is that we will see a variety of viewpoints
here, rather than an all-out gush session, fun as that might be.
But, hey, do whatever you like. (Err, within the boundaries of the
List Rules of course.) Anyway . . . back messages. Right.
***
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives/message/6661
Ebony briefly explains her view that the gatekeepers (literary
critics) have already ensured HP's place as a part of the classic
children's literature canon.
***
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives/message/6725
Heidi references a New York Times article cataloguing some anti-
Potter sentiment from critics who certainly don't view the books as
upcoming classics. See all responses for the full thread of
discussion.
***
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/1794
Pippin comments on JKR's use of very conventional storytelling
elements, and how conventional is another word for classic.
***
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/7353
A little ways down, Catlady talks about the uselessness of literary
criticism in identifying what makes a book classic (among other
things). Although completely tangential to our topic at hand, Caius
has an interesting response.
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/7646)
***
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/11227
Andrea brings up an interview with critic Harold Bloom about HP. See
all responses for the full thread of discussion.
***
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/18661
Joywitch quotes a New York Times article about scholarly interest in
HP and some of its classical inspirations.
***
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/23538
Prefect Marcus raises the question of what about HP has contributed
to its universal appeal. See all responses for the full thread of
discussion. I mean it: see all responses--this is a particularly
relevant and insightful thread. Make sure you scan the whole message
index in that time period for responses (look for any relevant-
looking subject headers), not just the shortened list of responses
Yahoo gives at the end of Prefect Marcus' initial post.
***
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/29935
Heather Moore maps out HP according to the framework of Joseph
Campbell's version of the Hero's Journey. (Relevant to the follow-up
question I posed about archetypes.)
***
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/31948
A little ways down, Susanna/pigwidgeon37 proposes that one thing JKR
is good at is providing the right basic/archetypal information so as
to imply much larger descriptions by the reader filling in the blank.
***
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/37257
Petra Pan explains archetypes as a defense against claims of HP's
unoriginality.
***
Of course, this is an incomplete list, and especially skips many
statements of opinion with regards to HP's status as a classic, along
with other insightful comments I deemed too tangential to include,
but hopefully it will provide some background of what has been
discussed before.
Okay, have at it! I hope to join in with my own musings later on,
but I'll refrain for now. (Here now, you in the peanut gallery!
Stop cheering!)
-Luke
More information about the HPforGrownups
archive