Harry Potter

it's the same thing.

I think as regards HP, it doesnt claim to be high art or 'literary', its a set of kids books, but what sets HP apart is the depth of feeling they evoke in people. They genuinely have their own kind of magic its not something I can put my finger on. On the face of it they are just kids books with universal themes nothing new or revolutionary, nothing sophisticated, but they grabbed a hold on me from the start. I had avoided them for years thinking they were hype, but they put a spell on me, and that is what makes them so loved, they are more than just hum drum derivative kids books, far more.

returning and scanning this thread after Petty said he had won the argument about character relatability. Where is it?- Halfwise

LotR's section- I think.

On the matter of difference between art and not art, its in the acclaim of those who know the craft best and its a big bonus if it has lastest more than one generation of peer review.

And thats as it should be. In exactly the same way there is a difference between an Ikea shelf I put up and a hand carved piece built by a skilled carpenter and joiner.
Books are the same, those genrally recognised or considered classics or literature or art, are those works which by general consensus of other skilled wrters, stand out from all else in their field.

You can have good compelling, moving, emotional stories and still not be literature.
Enjoyment in that sense is not necessary a criteria.
After all if we went on that basis then based on numbers Britains Got Talent would be a high point of artistic television, Titanic the greatest art film ever made and Mcdonalds a purveyor of highly regared culinary art forms, in a bun.

I'd put more stock in the label of "art" if the arty types could ever agree. Your definition sounds nice, but just look at LOTR. Plenty of fans of the book hold it up as art, but plenty of other people who don't like fantasy look down their noses at it.

I'm not saying that there's no difference between the IKEA shelf-type books and the handcrafted masterpiece-type books, but it's more subjective than woodworking, so I say just leave it in the eye of the beholder and don't try to fix labels on them. And I say this as someone who is normally fairly positive about labels.

You can have good compelling, moving, emotional stories and still not be literature.

oh my fucking god! yes! books are different but literature is literature!! yes, there is a diffence between McDonalds and a french fancy resturant and there is a difference between painting bought at wall-mart and one from a gallery BUT!
litterature is litteratur. there is well written literature, poorly written literature, great written literature etc. etc but don't tell me some books aren't literature. Harry Potter is definitely literature.

I would argue HP is very good story telling, juding by general reaction rather my own to them. But it is borrows ideas heavly from previous works, its structuring and stlye of writing offers nothing new, innooative or exceptional to the genre (save perhaps in commercialisation)- so in that sense its more close to the Ikea shelf than the Carpenters masterpiece.
Maybe HP will be considered literature in the future- we shall have to see on that as the real article tends to need a bit of time to be accepted by peers in subsequent generations.

There is a reason this year you can go to the cinema and yet still see new versions of Much Ado About Nothing and Rome and Juliet, despite them being 500 hundred years old.
There is difference betwen literature as art and just good writing- not that I am saying the line is hugely distinct, or the rules particularly evident, but its still there nonetheless.

If you want to take the example of a painter like Raphael who is revered by the artistic establishment or Jack Vettriano the popular painter the Art Establishment in Britain (Scotland, especially) seems to alternatively hate him and ignore him museums are last in line to buy his paintings.
On the other hand, his iconic The Singing Butler was sold for 744,500 at an auction in 2004 whereas in 1992 it was rejected for a Royal Academy show. It's estimated that he annually earns around 500,000 in royalties from print sales. Then he creates original paintings that can go for around $60-75,000 each, and he was awarded the OBE and also picked up an honorary doctorate from Scotland's St. Andrews University.
Although the intellectual elite despise his work his paintings have power and fascinate. I suspect his reputation will be at least as good as that of Hopper. And I further suspect that his critics are mistaken by viewing his work through their class-conscious prism of despising artists who get rich from their efforts and are popular with the general public. Popularity seems to be fine provided the artist is safely dead and was poverty-stricken while alive like Van Gogh.
Its all down to taste. Likewise LOTR and HP is all down to taste, HP is well written and has caused millions of children to read again, get excited by reading which the hallmark of any good writer.

I am not convinved the attitude by the art establishment to Vattriano's work is based on a class prism- I am a big fan of his works but his style and composition, whilst superbly executed, are deriviative of others work (much like HP) he puts it all together exceptionall well, but its a broader question as to whether it is art in the high sense or just popular imagery because it riffs off so much from before.

HP may have caused lots of kids to read, but that doesnt necessarily make it art. I did say the rules on this seem a bit vague and appear partly organic!

what is art and what's not, ok, but literature is literature!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I am not convinved the attitude by the art establishment to Vattriano's work is based on a class prism- I am a big fan of his works but his style and composition, whilst superbly executed, are deriviative of others work (much like HP) he puts it all together exceptionall well, but its a broader question as to whether it is art in the high sense or just popular imagery because it riffs off so much from before.

HP may have caused lots of kids to read, but that doesnt necessarily make it art. I did say the rules on this seem a bit vague and appear partly organic!

''I have days when I couldn't care less, and other days when I wonder why the gulf exists. There's a snob association: when something's too popular it's regarded as a bit trashy. But I would rather my paintings sold to ordinary people, rather than being stacked in a store house at the National Gallery'' Jack Vettriano.


and on the point you made that he is derivative, Vettriano was self-taught, could not afford models and had to get reference images where he could. All Artists including famous ones have borrowed themes or compositions or poses for centuries, its nothing new and therefore shouldnt be used against him. Plus, there's a difference in the art world between "borrowing" bits from someplace else and outright "copying" it's more slippery than the literary question of plagiarism.

As I say I am a Vettriano fan, but then I am not an artist who has studied and practisced art all my life.
I think you have to have a certain amount of trust in the experts here.
If I ask my skilled carpenter about a piece of carpentry I wouldnt presume to pretend I know more than him about it- he is the professional with a life times experience.

And writing, like any other craft, has its tricks if the trade, its great examples and innovations to study and learn from and a lot of grammar rules to conduct it by. It is a profession, to be learned like any other.
So those best placed to judge are those who know the craft of writing best, fellow writers and peers.

Exactly thats why I agree with the experts when they say HP is worthwhile literature.

Scholars study literary merits of Harry Potter
BBC NEWS 17 May 2012

More than 60 academics from across the world are gathering in Scotland to examine the literary merits of the Harry Potter novels.
Scholars will discuss the JK Rowling books over the next two days, with 50 lectures on the boy wizard scheduled at the University of St Andrews.
Topics include the role of paganism, British national identity and how death is dealt with in the book series.
An anthology based on the conference is planned for publication in 2013.
The conference has been organised by John Patrick Pazdziora from the University's School of English and Father Micah Snell from the University's Institute for Theology, Imagination and the Arts (ITIA)
''Harry Potter is the main narrative experience of an entire generation”
Prof John Patrick Pazdziora
Mr Pazdziora said: "We can't avoid the fact that Harry Potter is the main narrative experience of an entire generation - the children who literally grew up with Harry Potter.
"The Harry Potter novels are simply the most important and influential children's books of the late-20th and early 21st Centuries."
He added: "For very many people, this is their first experience of literature, and of literary art. So they want to think about it, and analyse it, and talk about it."
The keynote speaker for the event - which is entitled A Brand of Fictional Magic: Reading Harry Potter as Literature - is John Granger, author of The Deathly Hallows Lectures.
Mr Granger said: "I take exception to the unexamined and misinformed assumption that the books are 'light on literary merit'.
"Ms Rowling's works are comic, certainly, but it's a great mistake to think they're simple or haphazard story-telling."
He added: "Hogwarts, we're told, is hidden somewhere in Scotland, the author lives here, too, and Ms Rowling's mother was half Scot.

"It's somehow appropriate and fitting that the first academic conference of any size be held at Scotland's oldest university, St Andrews."

As I said, its a very organic line between what is art and what is not. The queston of whether HP is art or not would be easier to answer two ot three geerations from now rather in the warm afterglow of its media hype.

I would currently argue not on the basis it offers literature nothing new in style, writing ability, content, charcterisatons or development.
Tha is not the same however as saying its no good or has no merits- it clearly does as may millions have found pleasure in them.
But does it deserve to stand alongside the 'recognised' classics of literature? Different question really.

I think time will be the final judge. Will HP still be relevant to readers in the next century? Who knows, but I hope so.

To me the question is what I said before: we as a culture still remember and sometimes read King Solomon's Mines, but do we consider it literature?

I class HP with KSM.

halfwise wrote:To me the question is what I said before: we as a culture still remember and sometimes read King Solomon's Mines, but do we consider it literature?

I class HP with KSM.

Fair enough, and yet I think the Bronte's, Dickens and Shakespeare were all writing for about the same demographic in their times. And where does Mary Shelley fit?

It wouldn't surprise me if H Ryder Haggard or even Edgar Rice Burroughs find themselves moving up to the upper division reading lists as time goes by. Or not.

In the end, does it really matter which authors become canonized? For me the books stand or fall on their readability.

David H wrote:In the end, does it really matter which authors become canonized? For me the books stand or fall on their readability.

This.

I have no idea why people care about the label of "literature" at all.

but is it rereadable

agree, Eldo. good reading is good reading.

oi, hi look! Sirius Black's family tree.. look.. look!

cumberbatch! B. CUMBERBATCH!

In the end, does it really matter which authors become canonized? For me the books stand or fall on their readability.- David

An interesting point- but where would that leave a work like Joyce's Uylesess? I know very few people who would call it a an enjoyable read.
Yet it is definetly literature, it influenced works to come after it and it broke established rules and created new ways of writing and expressing ideas.
But try reading it in and of itself purely for pleasure- there are not many will even make it to the end.

I think enjoyabablity, accessability and popularity are probably among the lesser factors in deciding art or not. Otherwise, as I said before Britains Got Talent and McDonalds would be sellers of high art, and they clearly are not.

only JK Rowling is not the Macdonalds of literature, so its a false analogy. Only pulp fiction like Barbara Cartland could be classed as Macdonalds literature without any merit other than to entertain. JK Rowling is far better quality, and the only reason people denegrate her writing as not being 'literature' is snobbery.

only JK Rowling is not the Macdonalds of literature, so its a false analogy- Mrs Figg

It would be, if any one was making that analogy.
I was making the general point about art- that what is considered art is in general those works which have influenced the field or are considered by peers of the field to be remarkable or have outstanding merits in respect to the craft of writting.
I dont think HP meets those particular criteria but that does not mean it is not a good book, most of my favourite books dont meet that criteria.

no it would not be if you were making that analogy.

But I wasnt making that analogy, and I was saying if I was, I would be wrong.
But as I never drew such an analogy I wasnt wrong.
I simply dont think HP meets the sort of standards, as I laid out, usually reserved for art.
Thats not a comment on how good it is or not, how much people enjoyed it or not, merely a comment on the substance of the books looked at as exercises in the craft of writing.