Defend OOTP against my horribly Muggle mind! (On Pretension)

[feetmadeofclay]

No: HPFGUIDX 76458

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Wiley Willowsbough" 
<butsiriuslyfolks at c...> wrote:
> *sigh*
> 
> I have to side with the people who feel criticizing the series is a 
> bit pretentious.  For cripe's sake, people...this is young adult 
> literature, not Joyce or Tolkein or Hemmingway.  I don't ever 
expect 
> Rowling to be brought up in a university literature course.

Why is it pretentious to believe that children's books can both be 
aimed at children and have good prose, character development and well 
developed themes?  IMHO many kid's books have achieved just that.  I 
think POA did.  It isn't the BEST I've read, but I think it good.

But as it is... HP is being taught at least two universities.  And of 
course MANY schools have Children's Literature courses quite 
legitimately IMHO. It is a valid thing to study. What makes a great 
book for children?

Anne of Green Gables is a wonderful novel. (Of course it is 
debateable whether it is a kid's novel, but now most read it as 
children.  I believe it would now be marketed as one - like HP.) I 
read it only a few years ago and I was charmed, moved and delighted.  
It is as good as any weepy dusty tome.  So in that I think you are 
wrong.  Children's books are worth studying and worth analysing 
seriously based on their own merits.  

Not all will be classics but that doesn't make them bad.  Will the 
last book I read be a classic?  Who knows? - It was still good even 
if it isn't Joyce or Hemingway. Just as OOTP may be a good book even 
if it is forgotten.  But is it a good book?

A book doesn't have to be a favourite or perfect to be good.
 
> But as a teacher of pre-teens, I have seen the true "garbage" that 
> has come in and out of vogue over the years that these kids have 
> eaten up as "literature"...the Goosebumps series, the Animorphs 
> series, the Mary-Kate and Ashley series.  All disposable reading, 
not 
> much better than reading a comic book.  And the repetition you find 
> in some of these series is ridiculous, as they set up the plotlines 
> exactly the same way in each book (Animorphs the biggest culprit).

So have I. But as a teacher of pre-teens, surely you have seen the 
other books? What do you teach your pre-teens?  Or do they not 
deserve clean effective prose or insightfully written novels.  

I judge OOTP on its own merits.  I think it fine for kids to read 
anything they want from comics to Dickens (some do...) but what I 
don't think we should do is believe that as long as they are reading 
they are ok.  There is a difference. And it is important they read 
good work as well as the fun junk.

So the question is OOTP (specifically) worth the praise it is 
getting? (Which is IMHO VERY high indeed.) Obviously you think so.  
Obviously I disagree.  But let us talk about what is really being 
asked instead of just saying "Well it isn't as horrid as some of the 
junk out there", as if that would generally be a signal - This book 
is great!


> Yes, we're adults, and we see things in an adult way.  Sometimes, 
as 
> I lurk, I question how much we have dissected this canon, and the 
> arguments (and some quite passionate) that take place over it.  But 
> agreed...who would collectively argue and dissect and cherish a 
true 
> piece of adult literature like this, except those who truly read 
and 
> enjoy 700 page novels written for adults.
> 
> For many of these kids (and I would guess quite a high number of 
> adults), this is a first foray into metaphors and "flowerly 
> language".  If it were written at a level of Joyce or Hemmingway, 
no 
> one would have ever read it.  


How about the level of Hodgson, Diana Wynne Jones, Lemony Snicket, 
Sellwen and dozens of others whose work I think we SHOULD be 
comparing with OOTP  (adding whatever children's writers you 
enjoy...).  Afterall if it gets kids reading it has served a purpose, 
but to paraphrase Hensher that is not the same thing as writing a 
good novel.  

It doesn't have to be Joyce, but is it as good as Robert Cormier's 
stuff?

Personally I never notice flints unless they are really obvious. 
(Though I don't deride flint lovers and obsessives of all stripes - 
afterall that is one way of being a fan - complete focus and 
nitpicking is FUN for some. If you don't like it don't post about 
it.  I personally like to wonder about prose and themes and 
characters.) But plotholes are just poor writing.  Many kids IMHO 
might ask questions like "why didn't Sirius tell Harry to use the 
mirror when he spoke with him in the fire"?  At the very least I ask 
it - and think it a reasonable question.

Golly