Harry Potter: a great representation of our time?

[Ali]

(Also on the Main List)

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

I studied both the Iliad and Odyssey at some length. Both are seen 
as "great", and yet, there is strong evidence that they are written 
down versions of oral poems. They are very repetitive, and again and 
again characters are introduced with the same epithets, just as JKR 
reinforces her characterisations with repeat descriptions – horse 
faced, bony Petunia or Vernon with his throbbing vein in his 
forehead and purple face. These may be simple characterisations, but 
they are still very effective. Is great literature then only 
something which meets standard practices of English and grammar, or 
is it something more? English is after all evolving all the time. 
Purists might protest, but I would rather see "they" written down 
than he/she - It is or it is becoming an acceptable practice.

To me, Harry Potter is great because it speak to me and speaks of my 
time. My favourite pop group is The Beatles. Music critics rubbished 
their music in the early `60s: it wasn't real music, it was pop, it 
wasn't classical. Yet, 30 years later, the Beatles are still 
incredibly popular, but more than that, they are become a classic. 
Perhaps in 200 years they will still be liked, but they will still 
be a mouth-piece of their day and I believe that as tastes change, 
they will have become a "new" classical music.

I don't think that Harry Potter is "new" and ground breaking in the 
way that the Beatles were, but what it does do, is speak to and for 
our generation. I don't think Harry is great because of its 
popularity, - that  would infer that the Sun newspaper is great 
because it's the most popular paper in Britain, and I don't think 
that anyone can really claim greatness by reason of popularity.  I 
think that Harry Potter is great because of the way it has captured 
the popular imagination, and does strike a chord with young and old 
alike.

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? Diana had shown herself 
to be real, some might say even damaged, but both in her life, and 
in her death she was able to reach out to people. This was her 
greatness. Perhaps history will forget Diana and Harry, I don't 
know, but both have reached the national and international 
conscience in a way that few have paralleled in any field.

Ali