Harry Potter: a great representation of our time?

[feetmadeofclay]

No: HPFGUIDX 77168

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ali" <Ali at z...> wrote:
> I am intrigued by the idea of what makes good literature, indeed, 
> what makes anything great.

Quality - pure and simple.  I can't think of any classic novel I have 
ever read that wasn't well written.  The only exception was my great 
annoyance at the Iilad for repeating itself so often and even given 
that stylistic idiosyncracy, it had compensations.  Even the bible is 
well written at most points.  Job is powerful stuff.  

The reason we are still reading Alice in Wonderland or the fact that 
Pride and Prejudice remains one of the top grossing novels of all 
time is that despite many of their issues being irrelevant (like the 
limited options for women - Austen and the dead boring school 
lessons - Carroll) the writing is excellent.  Every generation 
connects with Hamlet because Hamlet is well written.  It has insight 
into being human and we remain as human as ever.  

Re: the Beatles.  Their tunes are still as good as any pop song on 
the chart as fresh and as singable as ever.  But remember it is still 
too soon to tell if the Beatles will be around in 200 years. We still 
listen to rock and pop.  People who saw the beatles in concert are 
still functing as a large percentage of the population and the world 
is not wholly different.

Only time will tell if people still connect with HP in a 100 years.  
Of course many books are good and still go unremembered. HP may be 
unable to do what the Xmen has been able to do - Its ongoing format, 
allows its world to remain relevant by reshaping itself for every 
generation. Its basic themes are relevant but it still needs an 
updated ever so often.  

Given the odd way HP is written (with every book being set for the 
age Harry is) and the prose like warm flat beer (as someone other 
than I noted), I suspect HP is not destined to be a classic.  


> A parallel that I can draw, although others might disagree is 
> Lady/Princess Diana. Diana recently came second to Winston 
Churchill 
> in a poll of "Greatest" Britons. Arguably, what had Diana done? She 
> might have been great with kids, great with the disadvantaged and 
> under privileged, but is that really great compared to the likes of 
> Elizabeth the First and Winston Churchill? > 
> Ali

Well poll an idiot get an idiotic answer.  

Golly