Harry Potter: a great representation of our time?

[Ali]

No: HPFGUIDX 77217

I wrote:-
 I am intrigued by the idea of what makes good literature, indeed, 
 what makes anything great.

Golly replied:-
 
 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.  

<snip>

>>> 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.<<< 


You've rather made my point here though. Who defines quality? Top 
quality vegetables in British supermarkets all have to be perfectly 
shaped, the same size, the same colour; quality vegetables in Italy 
are all different shapes and sizes, but IMO have much more flavour. 
Quality is not objective, it's subjective. British supermarkets go 
wrong by trying to use many objective standards and end up with 
tastless fruit. Is there not a danger that by assessing books 
against objective measures we are missing the point?

I do think that Jane Austen's books are classics and are "great". 
LOTR is different again. I find the story itself and creation of 
Middle Earth amazing, and yet, the first time I tried to read the 
books, I only got half way before I gave up in boredom. IMO Tolkein 
made brilliant stories, but was not always brilliant at telling them.

Golly again with regard to Lady Diana recently being voted one of 
the Greatest Britons:
 
>>>> Well poll an idiot get an idiotic answer.<<< 

So you mean that the general populace shouldn't have the right to 
decide whether something is great or not? What is the alternative a 
body of say English Literature Professors dictating to us what is 
quality or what is great? <g>


Ali