Harry Potter: a great representation of our time?

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 77307

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ali" <Ali at z...> wrote:
> 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>
> 
> 
> You've rather made my point here though. Who defines quality?  
> Quality is not objective, it's subjective. 
> 
> 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.
> 
<snip>
> 
> 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


What fun!
I wholeheartedly agree that the quality or otherwise of written works
is subjective. It has to be. Start imposing objective criteria and you'll
get some silly results. The Canterbury Tales become a collection of
bawdy anecdotes characterised by poor spelling, Joyce lacks the
ability to construct a decent plot line, is careless with punctuation,
and so on.
I think 'Literature' is a very slippery  concept.
The OED gives the following definitions:-
1. Acquaintance with books, polite or humane learning...
2. Literary work or production, the realm of letters.
3. Literary productions as a whole, the body of writings produced
    in a particular country or period.
    Now also  spec., that kind of written composition valued on 
    account of its qualities of form or emotional effect.

It's this last one that is the cause of contention. Particularly the last
six words. HP does have an emotional effect on many of the posters
to the site, it's form is better than most of the stuff produced these
days, but *technical* analysis of the text shows it leaves something
to be desired by some.

If we are arround in fifty years time we might be able to make better
judgements as to its values. Whether or not the later books in the
series match up to the earlier ones does not diminish their quality.
Many claim acquaintance with Dantes 'Inferno'. How many read
his 'Heaven'? Damn few. It's boring.

We also tend to forget that this series has been the work of a 
neophyte; seven books plotted out by a beginner, planned as an
entertainment, a tale to get lost in. Looked at from that angle it
is a literary wonder. It may be a rough diamond, but still a gem.
Thank you JKR.

Kneasy