Wednesday, August 24, 2005
End of a Friendship
I know the title of this post may sound a bit harsh and overstated, but after what I am about to write, I fully expect to lose one of my best and closest friends. I am enjoying the Harry Potter books. That's right, Zhubin, I have turned to the dark side, forsaken the light, and have read that list of tomes that encapsulates all that you find wrong with most modern literature. But I don't care...Let me explain.
I have recently finished reading a book by Steven King called "On Writing" where he gives his life story as well as tips to anyone who is considering writing. Throughout the book he gives examples of what to do when writing and then talks about authors who do this well. In one of his examples, talking about importance of story line, I think, he mentions J.K. Rowling and how she is very good at this. Now, I finished the Dark Tower series a while ago and, suffice to say, if Steven King said Joe had become a witch, I would have probably built the bonfire before asking myself why Mr. Caldwell HADN'T FINISHED MY VIDEO...sorry...tangent moment... Anywho, I think King is a great writer and so decided that, with his blessing, I too would see what this was all about (NOTE: My wife wants me to point out that she had been telling me to read these and that I would enjoy them long before a book told me to and that obviously a page of text has more influence than her...I told her to go cook me something...I woke up hours later...)
The argument that we have had for so long seems to center on the fact of reading for enlightenment and intellectual stimulation versus reading simply for pleasure books that may not discuss, in depth, the extreme subtleties of life as we know it. SOME (notice no names, Zhubin...) would say that reading and writing derives its validity for what it can tell us about the human condition. Namely, in novels such as Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness, and the like, we see life as it is, in all its shades of grays and all its grit and grime and therefore can derive from its bared pages a more integral and understandable view of who we are and what life is. I can agree with this to a point. I believe that these novels, as well as countless others, show us a deeper look at who we are and thus deserve to be studied and elevated above, say, Danielle Steele.
However, SOME say that this is the only point in reading. To take oneself out of one's world, to enter a land in which we deal in more absolutes and which our imagination can run free, a land in which good versus evil is quite apparent with very little difficulty seems like a very uselss waste of time. I would say, however, that it has many uses, some of which almost as worthwhile as "Zhubin Literature". Whereas Crime and Punishment might deal with one man's psychological struggle, Harry Potter deals with similar weighty issues such as death, prejudice, hatred, jealousy, and other major themes, and may perhaps have be better in some aspects because it can be interesting and stimulating to those who enjoy "weightier" novels as well as a younger reader or someone who perhaps does not enjoy or lacks the education or gift to understand heavier literature. It can appeal across the board in way some "Greats" cannot and therefor must have something of merit in it. Both have their place, both are good and useful in their own right, but to say that reading should be limited to the cultural and educational elite and should deal almost exclusively with the inner working of the human condition as it is rather than a world of what could be, seems to be unfounded elitism.
Your rebuttal...
I have recently finished reading a book by Steven King called "On Writing" where he gives his life story as well as tips to anyone who is considering writing. Throughout the book he gives examples of what to do when writing and then talks about authors who do this well. In one of his examples, talking about importance of story line, I think, he mentions J.K. Rowling and how she is very good at this. Now, I finished the Dark Tower series a while ago and, suffice to say, if Steven King said Joe had become a witch, I would have probably built the bonfire before asking myself why Mr. Caldwell HADN'T FINISHED MY VIDEO...sorry...tangent moment... Anywho, I think King is a great writer and so decided that, with his blessing, I too would see what this was all about (NOTE: My wife wants me to point out that she had been telling me to read these and that I would enjoy them long before a book told me to and that obviously a page of text has more influence than her...I told her to go cook me something...I woke up hours later...)
The argument that we have had for so long seems to center on the fact of reading for enlightenment and intellectual stimulation versus reading simply for pleasure books that may not discuss, in depth, the extreme subtleties of life as we know it. SOME (notice no names, Zhubin...) would say that reading and writing derives its validity for what it can tell us about the human condition. Namely, in novels such as Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness, and the like, we see life as it is, in all its shades of grays and all its grit and grime and therefore can derive from its bared pages a more integral and understandable view of who we are and what life is. I can agree with this to a point. I believe that these novels, as well as countless others, show us a deeper look at who we are and thus deserve to be studied and elevated above, say, Danielle Steele.
However, SOME say that this is the only point in reading. To take oneself out of one's world, to enter a land in which we deal in more absolutes and which our imagination can run free, a land in which good versus evil is quite apparent with very little difficulty seems like a very uselss waste of time. I would say, however, that it has many uses, some of which almost as worthwhile as "Zhubin Literature". Whereas Crime and Punishment might deal with one man's psychological struggle, Harry Potter deals with similar weighty issues such as death, prejudice, hatred, jealousy, and other major themes, and may perhaps have be better in some aspects because it can be interesting and stimulating to those who enjoy "weightier" novels as well as a younger reader or someone who perhaps does not enjoy or lacks the education or gift to understand heavier literature. It can appeal across the board in way some "Greats" cannot and therefor must have something of merit in it. Both have their place, both are good and useful in their own right, but to say that reading should be limited to the cultural and educational elite and should deal almost exclusively with the inner working of the human condition as it is rather than a world of what could be, seems to be unfounded elitism.
Your rebuttal...
# posted by Christopher @ 11:43 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
You're trying to bait me, but luckily for you I can be easily baited.
This is the end of the FRIENDSHIP, Christopher, but I sadly knew this was coming. How could we have traveled the same path of mental growth? While I emerged from college with a Bachelor of Science and attended law school, you majored in drama and attended a conservatory. I should have you would have fallen prey to the dark side - you've been weakening for years.
Let me take apart your points one by one, with a mind sharpened from years of rigorous intellectual stimulation, and we'll see if your mind, heavy and sluggish from a six year all-theatre diet, can keep up.
1. Certainly Harry Potter "deals with" weighty issues such as death, prejudice, hatred, yadda yadda. Even Danielle Steele books deal with at least one of these themes. You'd have to go into the Especially Stupid Children's section of the bookstore to find a book that manages to avoid all of them.
The point is not whether a book deals with the themes, but what it has to say about these themes. I have not read Harry Potter, but I'll bet a good amount of money that what Harry Potter has to say about prejudice and hatred is that they're Bad Things, and that death is a Sad Thing. These statements are all well and good for children, which we should all remember is the demographic for which Harry Potter is intended. So certainly I agree that such a novel will be interesting and stimulating to a younger reader. But to an adult who enjoys "weightier" novels? One would hope that he or she would find it simplistic and unsatisfying, to say the least. I don't see how someone who understands and appreciates a novel like Heart of Darkness can be equally "interested and stimulated" by the themes in Harry Potter.
2. Something that can "appeal across the board" MUST "have something of merit?" Really, Christopher? Are you prepared to argue that reality TV is art, too? Or that George W. Bush is a good president, for that matter?
3. I've never said that reading should be limited to the cultural and educational elite. But people our age should read books for an enlightening purpose, and when applied to novels, that means we should read books that use fiction to explore and comment on the human condition. That doesn't limit us to 18th-century English novels by any means at all. There are a wide range of books that do that, and there are a wide range of ways they do it. The Once and Future King and Life of Pi, for example, are books that use very outlandish stories to discuss very deep ideas.
I'm not saying that one should never read Harry Potter, or Tom Clancy, or what have you. But those books are ultimately empty stories, full of plot and adventure and nothing else. They should be guilty pleasures, like a chocolate bar or a bag of chips, to be consumed rarely and in between more healthy fare. Read too much of them and you get fat - your mind begins to adapt to the lowered expectations, and you lose the ability to read beyond a superficial plot.
God forbid, Christopher, that you lose your critical analysis skills to the point where you dismiss entire novels on the basis of the main character being "too whiny." God forbid it!
This is the end of the FRIENDSHIP, Christopher, but I sadly knew this was coming. How could we have traveled the same path of mental growth? While I emerged from college with a Bachelor of Science and attended law school, you majored in drama and attended a conservatory. I should have you would have fallen prey to the dark side - you've been weakening for years.
Let me take apart your points one by one, with a mind sharpened from years of rigorous intellectual stimulation, and we'll see if your mind, heavy and sluggish from a six year all-theatre diet, can keep up.
1. Certainly Harry Potter "deals with" weighty issues such as death, prejudice, hatred, yadda yadda. Even Danielle Steele books deal with at least one of these themes. You'd have to go into the Especially Stupid Children's section of the bookstore to find a book that manages to avoid all of them.
The point is not whether a book deals with the themes, but what it has to say about these themes. I have not read Harry Potter, but I'll bet a good amount of money that what Harry Potter has to say about prejudice and hatred is that they're Bad Things, and that death is a Sad Thing. These statements are all well and good for children, which we should all remember is the demographic for which Harry Potter is intended. So certainly I agree that such a novel will be interesting and stimulating to a younger reader. But to an adult who enjoys "weightier" novels? One would hope that he or she would find it simplistic and unsatisfying, to say the least. I don't see how someone who understands and appreciates a novel like Heart of Darkness can be equally "interested and stimulated" by the themes in Harry Potter.
2. Something that can "appeal across the board" MUST "have something of merit?" Really, Christopher? Are you prepared to argue that reality TV is art, too? Or that George W. Bush is a good president, for that matter?
3. I've never said that reading should be limited to the cultural and educational elite. But people our age should read books for an enlightening purpose, and when applied to novels, that means we should read books that use fiction to explore and comment on the human condition. That doesn't limit us to 18th-century English novels by any means at all. There are a wide range of books that do that, and there are a wide range of ways they do it. The Once and Future King and Life of Pi, for example, are books that use very outlandish stories to discuss very deep ideas.
I'm not saying that one should never read Harry Potter, or Tom Clancy, or what have you. But those books are ultimately empty stories, full of plot and adventure and nothing else. They should be guilty pleasures, like a chocolate bar or a bag of chips, to be consumed rarely and in between more healthy fare. Read too much of them and you get fat - your mind begins to adapt to the lowered expectations, and you lose the ability to read beyond a superficial plot.
God forbid, Christopher, that you lose your critical analysis skills to the point where you dismiss entire novels on the basis of the main character being "too whiny." God forbid it!
While I will agree that you have gone to receive a bachelor of science (in your home state of Tennessee where you obviously decided that a new cultural atmosphere was beyond you at that point of your maturation) and are now in law school (still in the same country...hmm...well cultural diversity and real life experience are obviously not important to a person't mental growth) so you have obviously way surpassed me, but I shall try, in my theatre addled mind, to respond to your inspired comments.
1. Yes it does deal with good and bad in more simpistic ways but to occasionally read a story in which sides can be picked and there is more black and white than an unending gray can be just as enjoyable to the idealistic or cynical intelligent reader as one that deals with them in obtuse or subtle ways. I'm also not saying that I would hold Harry Potter up there with Crime and Punishment as far as inspired literature, but unlike you, I can find redeeming and interesting qualities in Potter as well.
2. As for appeal across the board, I will refer to Gentry's comment at one point in that if people as intelligent as many that we know can enjoy and find interesting things in these books, then maybe there are attributes to popular literature that exist even if you don't understand or agree with them.
3.As far as them being guilty pleasures, I will agree that if all you ever read is Harry Potter 1-99 and never touch the older classics or the new great literature then you are missing out. But to equate anything other than the 3-4% of literature you are talking about to a "guilty pleasure" that will make your mind slow and unable to comprehend good, deep stories, I would remind you of Mr. Daniel's teaching of the science fiction class in which he used MANY modern writers who deal with what you would term as simplistic literature and still manages to enjoy deeper literature. Maybe it is not the evil that you believe.
In the end, I believe I have discovered the Zhubin of the Far Right, the Zhubin who wants only a small percentage of literature to be allowed or touted as good and seems to not be able to expand his mind to perhaps give credence to other, less strictly defined literature. But, hey...maybe once you start experiencing life rather than reading about it in your "weighty" novels, you will change your mind.
And he was REALLY WHINY!!!!!
1. Yes it does deal with good and bad in more simpistic ways but to occasionally read a story in which sides can be picked and there is more black and white than an unending gray can be just as enjoyable to the idealistic or cynical intelligent reader as one that deals with them in obtuse or subtle ways. I'm also not saying that I would hold Harry Potter up there with Crime and Punishment as far as inspired literature, but unlike you, I can find redeeming and interesting qualities in Potter as well.
2. As for appeal across the board, I will refer to Gentry's comment at one point in that if people as intelligent as many that we know can enjoy and find interesting things in these books, then maybe there are attributes to popular literature that exist even if you don't understand or agree with them.
3.As far as them being guilty pleasures, I will agree that if all you ever read is Harry Potter 1-99 and never touch the older classics or the new great literature then you are missing out. But to equate anything other than the 3-4% of literature you are talking about to a "guilty pleasure" that will make your mind slow and unable to comprehend good, deep stories, I would remind you of Mr. Daniel's teaching of the science fiction class in which he used MANY modern writers who deal with what you would term as simplistic literature and still manages to enjoy deeper literature. Maybe it is not the evil that you believe.
In the end, I believe I have discovered the Zhubin of the Far Right, the Zhubin who wants only a small percentage of literature to be allowed or touted as good and seems to not be able to expand his mind to perhaps give credence to other, less strictly defined literature. But, hey...maybe once you start experiencing life rather than reading about it in your "weighty" novels, you will change your mind.
And he was REALLY WHINY!!!!!
"I'm not saying that one should never read Harry Potter, or Tom Clancy, or what have you. But those books are ultimately empty stories, full of plot and adventure and nothing else. They should be guilty pleasures, like a chocolate bar or a bag of chips, to be consumed rarely and in between more healthy fare. Read too much of them and you get fat - your mind begins to adapt to the lowered expectations, and you lose the ability to read beyond a superficial plot."
I'll give you that, it is comparable to say playing too many video games. However, I think the main draw of the Harry Potter books is the escapist atmosphere. I, for example, do not read many exploratory books because I'm bogged down in technical and social literature day in and day out. Now, I don't ready Harry Potter either, but I can see why someone in my position or similar positions would rather read Harry Potter than say Moby Dick on a regular basis.
~Brian
I'll give you that, it is comparable to say playing too many video games. However, I think the main draw of the Harry Potter books is the escapist atmosphere. I, for example, do not read many exploratory books because I'm bogged down in technical and social literature day in and day out. Now, I don't ready Harry Potter either, but I can see why someone in my position or similar positions would rather read Harry Potter than say Moby Dick on a regular basis.
~Brian
# posted by 
: 10:54 PM
: 10:54 PM
What...video games...surely no one thinks that Zhubin would play video games to escape. No, he's reading Madame Bovary again, and agian, again...
Madame Bovary eh? Well I suppose that explains Zhubin's hatred for the female sex, I always wondered why he described women as if black bile were leaving their mouths.
~Brian
~Brian
# posted by : 11:01 PM
: 11:01 PM
I remember back in yonder days how Christopher and I would always call each other out on subtle inaccuracies in our grammar. But now see what has happened - my dear friend becomes so wrapped up in his parenthetical comments that he forgets they do not contribute to the grammatical structure of a sentence. Look what they've done to my boy.
1. But what ARE these redeeming and interesting qualities? All you've ever hinted is that these books let you easily pick a Good side over a Bad side, in a world of moral absolutes. Is that all? You just want a side to cheer for?
Sure, that's all well and good. That's my entire philosophy toward sports. But surely you will agree that this attribute is not an enlightening one (in fact, it's the exact opposite - black and white visions of the world are the mark of immaturity). It certainly is enjoyable to read such a story, if only for the satisfaction of seeing Good triumph over Evil, but that's hardly redeeming or interesting.
2. Perhaps here we can collapse Point 1 and Point 2, as my response here is the same as in Point 1: why don't you tell me what these attributes are? Then I can understand AND disagree with them.
3. I didn't take Mr. Daniel's Sci-Fi class, but if I remember correctly, he used the greatest authors of the science fiction genre. Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, etc. And science fiction, at its best, is INCREDIBLY deep and thought-provoking, using the backdrop of new technologies and alien races to explore humanity's fears and hopes. The Martian Chronicles and Nightfall are just two such example.
I think your argument ultimately boils down to "I like reading bad books [or as you describe it, "less strictly defined literature," which is the best euphemism ever] because they let me comfortably choose a Good side and cheer it on." And if that's the case then you MUST agree with me, because surely you agree that a simplistic world vision is not intelligent or broadening. And surely you must THEN agree with me that constant consumption of simplistic literature is thus bad, as it dulls the mind in the same way video games do. Maybe you can enjoy a simplistic book every now and then, but you certainly don't want to make that the focus of your reading.
So, unless you disagree with my summation of your argument, then you can't help but agree with me, and hopefully you'll put down these foolish books and start reading some Hardy.
1. But what ARE these redeeming and interesting qualities? All you've ever hinted is that these books let you easily pick a Good side over a Bad side, in a world of moral absolutes. Is that all? You just want a side to cheer for?
Sure, that's all well and good. That's my entire philosophy toward sports. But surely you will agree that this attribute is not an enlightening one (in fact, it's the exact opposite - black and white visions of the world are the mark of immaturity). It certainly is enjoyable to read such a story, if only for the satisfaction of seeing Good triumph over Evil, but that's hardly redeeming or interesting.
2. Perhaps here we can collapse Point 1 and Point 2, as my response here is the same as in Point 1: why don't you tell me what these attributes are? Then I can understand AND disagree with them.
3. I didn't take Mr. Daniel's Sci-Fi class, but if I remember correctly, he used the greatest authors of the science fiction genre. Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, etc. And science fiction, at its best, is INCREDIBLY deep and thought-provoking, using the backdrop of new technologies and alien races to explore humanity's fears and hopes. The Martian Chronicles and Nightfall are just two such example.
I think your argument ultimately boils down to "I like reading bad books [or as you describe it, "less strictly defined literature," which is the best euphemism ever] because they let me comfortably choose a Good side and cheer it on." And if that's the case then you MUST agree with me, because surely you agree that a simplistic world vision is not intelligent or broadening. And surely you must THEN agree with me that constant consumption of simplistic literature is thus bad, as it dulls the mind in the same way video games do. Maybe you can enjoy a simplistic book every now and then, but you certainly don't want to make that the focus of your reading.
So, unless you disagree with my summation of your argument, then you can't help but agree with me, and hopefully you'll put down these foolish books and start reading some Hardy.
Am leaving town so can't properly slam you but wanted to say, on a tangent, that the Simpsons book you had on your blog list is EXCELLENT... Good call!
I skipped over some of the later comments because you people tend to ramble on. So if I'm repeating something that someone's said already, just deal with it.
I don't think Harry Potter could compete with (oh, I'll just pull a title at random) Heart of Darkness on an intellectual level. But on an artistic level? Absolutely. The second we try to pigeon-hole what an artform should be, we immediately limit its potential.
Yes, Zhubin, reality t.v. is art. Like it or not. Now, I'm not a huge fan of Survivor or crappy shows like that. But the fact is, in their way, someone has used the medium of television to tell some kind of story. Are the stories deep? No. Is it art? Sure it is. Just as a show like Futurama is art. The comic strip Peanuts is art. The pamphlet in the pocket on the back of airplane seats that tells you what to do if the plane crashes is art.
Does the airplane pamphlet teach me something about my soul? I hope not, but it may help me survive. And it uses a comic-style format that is used by the likes of (critically acclaimed) Will Eisner, Alan Moore, or Neal Gaiman.
Harry Potter is pure entertainment, and while I haven't read them yet, I did enjoy the movies for what they were.
I seem to remember you, Zhubin, enjoying the movie Anchorman. I think it's a hilarious movie. Does that make it less successful a piece of art as, say, The Godfather? I don't think so. I'm sure you'll guffaw at that point, but I think both movies are at the top of their game for what they do. If you deny that, you are in effect saying that comedy is less valid them drama. In which case I'd say, stop waisting your time with all that improv and focus on the lawyerin'.
I don't think Harry Potter could compete with (oh, I'll just pull a title at random) Heart of Darkness on an intellectual level. But on an artistic level? Absolutely. The second we try to pigeon-hole what an artform should be, we immediately limit its potential.
Yes, Zhubin, reality t.v. is art. Like it or not. Now, I'm not a huge fan of Survivor or crappy shows like that. But the fact is, in their way, someone has used the medium of television to tell some kind of story. Are the stories deep? No. Is it art? Sure it is. Just as a show like Futurama is art. The comic strip Peanuts is art. The pamphlet in the pocket on the back of airplane seats that tells you what to do if the plane crashes is art.
Does the airplane pamphlet teach me something about my soul? I hope not, but it may help me survive. And it uses a comic-style format that is used by the likes of (critically acclaimed) Will Eisner, Alan Moore, or Neal Gaiman.
Harry Potter is pure entertainment, and while I haven't read them yet, I did enjoy the movies for what they were.
I seem to remember you, Zhubin, enjoying the movie Anchorman. I think it's a hilarious movie. Does that make it less successful a piece of art as, say, The Godfather? I don't think so. I'm sure you'll guffaw at that point, but I think both movies are at the top of their game for what they do. If you deny that, you are in effect saying that comedy is less valid them drama. In which case I'd say, stop waisting your time with all that improv and focus on the lawyerin'.
# posted by : 8:00 PM
: 8:00 PM
Hmm. As usual, it seems I'm slow on the uptake in this issue, but if I may "disengage from debate" for a moment:
You guys are, also as usual, not arguing the same thing. Zhubin's point that Harry Potter isn't thourouroughly (good god, how do you spell that word?!) thought-provoking is valid. Chris' point that non-thought-provoking literature isn't necessarily trash is valid. Scott's point about the lawyerin' is, granted, somewhat less valid, but we should hear him out.
However, Chris isn't saying that Harry Potter is thought-provoking, nor is Zhubin saying that all non-thought-provoking literature is trash.
Yes, people need healthy doses of the heavy stuff to keep their minds open. Even when it comes to comedy, we all, as improv performers, can agree that poop jokes aren't as "good" as equally funny, yet more profound gags, quips, or larks.
As Potter goes, I have to approach it from the standpoint of a teacher, where I say "Hey! People are reading! Instead of watching Reality TV/art! Somebody get me five hundred copies of whatever this guy's selling--stat!" It's not Tolstoy, but it's also not See Spot Run.
I would encourage everyone, on either side, to simply read a Harry Potter book before continuing their respective line of reasoning. I haven't, but the studies I've read show that solid children's literature is the (and the only) gateway to more advanced reading. We're looking at a generation so brain-addled by TV, video games, and pop music that we should count ourselves lucky someone like what's-her-name-who's-supposedly-richer-than-the-queen came along and made reading fun again.
Upset that adults are reading it? Do me this favor: Whenever you meet someone over the age of twenty who says they like Harry Potter, ask them what books they used to read before Hogwarts was around. They'll probably say "nothing," and definitely won't say Heart of Darkness (though I'm still unclear as to how that became the pinnacle of human expression...) If they do cite Conrad or Hardy, ask them if they still do (hint: their answer will be "yes.")
Smart people aren't dumber because of these books, and though dumb people may not be smarter, they're being exposed to--nay, inundated with--the printed word. Sorry, Zhub, but I can't oppose that.
You guys are, also as usual, not arguing the same thing. Zhubin's point that Harry Potter isn't thourouroughly (good god, how do you spell that word?!) thought-provoking is valid. Chris' point that non-thought-provoking literature isn't necessarily trash is valid. Scott's point about the lawyerin' is, granted, somewhat less valid, but we should hear him out.
However, Chris isn't saying that Harry Potter is thought-provoking, nor is Zhubin saying that all non-thought-provoking literature is trash.
Yes, people need healthy doses of the heavy stuff to keep their minds open. Even when it comes to comedy, we all, as improv performers, can agree that poop jokes aren't as "good" as equally funny, yet more profound gags, quips, or larks.
As Potter goes, I have to approach it from the standpoint of a teacher, where I say "Hey! People are reading! Instead of watching Reality TV/art! Somebody get me five hundred copies of whatever this guy's selling--stat!" It's not Tolstoy, but it's also not See Spot Run.
I would encourage everyone, on either side, to simply read a Harry Potter book before continuing their respective line of reasoning. I haven't, but the studies I've read show that solid children's literature is the (and the only) gateway to more advanced reading. We're looking at a generation so brain-addled by TV, video games, and pop music that we should count ourselves lucky someone like what's-her-name-who's-supposedly-richer-than-the-queen came along and made reading fun again.
Upset that adults are reading it? Do me this favor: Whenever you meet someone over the age of twenty who says they like Harry Potter, ask them what books they used to read before Hogwarts was around. They'll probably say "nothing," and definitely won't say Heart of Darkness (though I'm still unclear as to how that became the pinnacle of human expression...) If they do cite Conrad or Hardy, ask them if they still do (hint: their answer will be "yes.")
Smart people aren't dumber because of these books, and though dumb people may not be smarter, they're being exposed to--nay, inundated with--the printed word. Sorry, Zhub, but I can't oppose that.
I think Zhubin has succumb to the fact that people are going to read Harry Potter, so his argument has shifted as of recently towards "It's not that it is neccessarily bad that people read Harry Potter, but they certainly shouldn't limit themselves to Potter or similar books as it would do nothing to better them in the long run." I would also like to note that historically speaking we are actually doing really well in terms of literacy and reading...even admist the generation of "brain-addled" TV and video game enthusiasts. I certainly wouldn't want to go back and grow up in the time of Flaubert or our other favorite author's when the majority of children (or at least the working class) never even learned how to read or write.
# posted by : 12:51 AM
: 12:51 AM
Actually, Joe, I AM saying that non-thought-provoking literature is trash, or at least the literary equivalent of junk food. I like the food analogy, because I think bad books provide the same satisfying feeling with the same limited nutritional value. Christopher is saying, or at least was before he skipped town, that bad books are not trash because they offer attributes I don't recognize or value, but so far he has not told me what those attributes are besides the picking-a-good-side attribute.
And I DO think smart people get dumber the more they read these books, in the same way thin people get fat when they eat nothing but junk food.
Here's where my food analogy falls apart: I think Harry Potter is GREAT for children, for all the reasons you cite. I'll give them to my own children, most definitely. And I'm sure it's also good for new or undeveloped readers, for the same reasons. But of course these reasons don't apply to people our age and at our reading capability, who should be mature and hungry enough for more complicated fare.
As for Scott: your definition of "art" is so broad that it's useless. But that was never part of the discussion, anyway. I'm only talking about what books are good.
And I DO think smart people get dumber the more they read these books, in the same way thin people get fat when they eat nothing but junk food.
Here's where my food analogy falls apart: I think Harry Potter is GREAT for children, for all the reasons you cite. I'll give them to my own children, most definitely. And I'm sure it's also good for new or undeveloped readers, for the same reasons. But of course these reasons don't apply to people our age and at our reading capability, who should be mature and hungry enough for more complicated fare.
As for Scott: your definition of "art" is so broad that it's useless. But that was never part of the discussion, anyway. I'm only talking about what books are good.
And there it is: "...who should be mature enough..."
That's a lot to ask, man. You expect more, I think, than most are willing to give. Maybe first we ought to address the actual issue of junk food consumption, and then move on to analogous fiascos.
Fiascoes?
That's a lot to ask, man. You expect more, I think, than most are willing to give. Maybe first we ought to address the actual issue of junk food consumption, and then move on to analogous fiascos.
Fiascoes?
zhubin, i'm with you to a point. i agree that harry potter is...uh....less than literary genius. i won't be reading them.
HOWEVER, i will say that jk rowling has done something amazing with her work: get people who wouldn't normally be reading to actually pick up a BOOK and comprehend the words on the page. indeed, they were first intended for children of a grade school level but when the craze took off, adults began to read the books (and we all know the rest). but really--is it better for people to be reading (what i can only call) useless literature, or not read at all?
maybe it's just the english teacher coming out in me, but i'd rather have them reading because they want to read.
the easiest comparison i can make would be to (and don't shoot me--because i'm going to be trashing something you all love here) is the star wars trilogy (the original three). are they fantastic works of cinematic genius? not really. do they have super cool effects? sure. is the script stellar? uh, no. was the acting award-worthy? not in the slightest.
but do masses of people still love the movies like family? yup. know why? because the movies get people ENGAGED. just like the harry potter series does.
the books aren't my cup of tea. i'd rather sit down with a copy of jane eyre and a highlighter, picking out all the passages of literary genius. but if someone loves to read harry potter (especially if they wouldn't necessarily read before), i'm not telling them they can't.
and sci fi and fantasy have some great books in the genre. harry potter is a great starting point.
HOWEVER, i will say that jk rowling has done something amazing with her work: get people who wouldn't normally be reading to actually pick up a BOOK and comprehend the words on the page. indeed, they were first intended for children of a grade school level but when the craze took off, adults began to read the books (and we all know the rest). but really--is it better for people to be reading (what i can only call) useless literature, or not read at all?
maybe it's just the english teacher coming out in me, but i'd rather have them reading because they want to read.
the easiest comparison i can make would be to (and don't shoot me--because i'm going to be trashing something you all love here) is the star wars trilogy (the original three). are they fantastic works of cinematic genius? not really. do they have super cool effects? sure. is the script stellar? uh, no. was the acting award-worthy? not in the slightest.
but do masses of people still love the movies like family? yup. know why? because the movies get people ENGAGED. just like the harry potter series does.
the books aren't my cup of tea. i'd rather sit down with a copy of jane eyre and a highlighter, picking out all the passages of literary genius. but if someone loves to read harry potter (especially if they wouldn't necessarily read before), i'm not telling them they can't.
and sci fi and fantasy have some great books in the genre. harry potter is a great starting point.
# posted by : 2:23 PM
: 2:23 PM
I think it's fiascos, but both spellings look like something you'd find on a Taco Bell menu.
I don't see why I'm asking too muuch of people to read challenging books - it's not like I'm demanding federal intervention with the issue, anyway. Unlike junk food consumption, of which I might start demanding some regulation if things get much worse, especially with kids.
Rachel, you didn't say anything that Joe didn't already say and I didn't already agree with. Again, of course I'd rather have people reading Harry Potter than not reading, just like I'd rather have people eating junk food than not eating any food. But that's not the issue - the issue is whether people who can read at a higher level should be spending all their reading time on books significantly below that level.
Christopher, get your butt back in town and surrender to me.
I don't see why I'm asking too muuch of people to read challenging books - it's not like I'm demanding federal intervention with the issue, anyway. Unlike junk food consumption, of which I might start demanding some regulation if things get much worse, especially with kids.
Rachel, you didn't say anything that Joe didn't already say and I didn't already agree with. Again, of course I'd rather have people reading Harry Potter than not reading, just like I'd rather have people eating junk food than not eating any food. But that's not the issue - the issue is whether people who can read at a higher level should be spending all their reading time on books significantly below that level.
Christopher, get your butt back in town and surrender to me.
"But that's not the issue - the issue is whether people who can read at a higher level should be spending all their reading time on books significantly below that level."
so you're telling me that you ALWAYS read superb literature? and you ALWAYS go see artsy, intellectual films? ALWAYS? you NEVER just want to watch dodgeball because you just want a break? you NEVER pick up a comic book or something? EVER? the point is--sometimes we all need a little variety in our diets. right?
so you're telling me that you ALWAYS read superb literature? and you ALWAYS go see artsy, intellectual films? ALWAYS? you NEVER just want to watch dodgeball because you just want a break? you NEVER pick up a comic book or something? EVER? the point is--sometimes we all need a little variety in our diets. right?
# posted by : 10:51 PM
: 10:51 PM
Well, I think Zhubin's point is more that a comic book by, say, Neil Gaiman would be superior to, I dunno, Archie and Jughead.
i know what the point is. i'm not a complete idiot, as you all seem to think 98% of the time. i'm trying to make my OWN point here, in rebuttal, and it doesn't seem to be doing any danged good!
# posted by : 3:46 AM
: 3:46 AM
Rache, your original point was that it's better for people to be reading something than nothing, which I already agreed with.
If your point is now that everyone could use a little variety in their diets, that's an entirely new point. And I disagree with that. Non-superb literature is unhealthy for you, so it's not like "variety" in your diet. It's just junk food.
Surely, everyone can dip a little into bad literature here and there - I do it, too, especially with cartoons like Fox Trot and Dilbert and what have you. Can't get enough of those things.
I really like the junk food analogy, because I think it fits really well. Bad literature is the same as junk food for people like us, who can read at a higher level. It doesn't mean we should NEVER read it, but it certainly should be digested in small and infrequent amounts.
And let me cut Scott off right here and say that I'm NOT SAYING that all comic books are bad books. There are many graphic novels that are very high quality.
If your point is now that everyone could use a little variety in their diets, that's an entirely new point. And I disagree with that. Non-superb literature is unhealthy for you, so it's not like "variety" in your diet. It's just junk food.
Surely, everyone can dip a little into bad literature here and there - I do it, too, especially with cartoons like Fox Trot and Dilbert and what have you. Can't get enough of those things.
I really like the junk food analogy, because I think it fits really well. Bad literature is the same as junk food for people like us, who can read at a higher level. It doesn't mean we should NEVER read it, but it certainly should be digested in small and infrequent amounts.
And let me cut Scott off right here and say that I'm NOT SAYING that all comic books are bad books. There are many graphic novels that are very high quality.
you really like the junk food analogy because YOU thought of it, admit it.
so, are you saying that you ALWAYS eat healthily? (wow...this is going off somewhere else entirely). you don't EVER have a cookie...don't EVER drink a beer? of course that's not what you're saying. sure, quanities en masse are not the best, but a little bit every now and then isn't going to kill you.
sometimes when you're sick to death of reading briefs, for example, don't you ever just want to read something inane solely for entertainment purposes--something you don't really have to think about?
so, are you saying that you ALWAYS eat healthily? (wow...this is going off somewhere else entirely). you don't EVER have a cookie...don't EVER drink a beer? of course that's not what you're saying. sure, quanities en masse are not the best, but a little bit every now and then isn't going to kill you.
sometimes when you're sick to death of reading briefs, for example, don't you ever just want to read something inane solely for entertainment purposes--something you don't really have to think about?
# posted by : 3:29 PM
: 3:29 PM
wait--scratch what i just said.
zhubin, you contradict yourself in that post. first you say that bad literature is unhealthy for people reading at our level, and then you say that it's okay to read it every now and again.
i think we're trying to say the same things, only we're going about saying it two completely different ways.
how the HECK did this turn into a 21 comment debate??
zhubin, you contradict yourself in that post. first you say that bad literature is unhealthy for people reading at our level, and then you say that it's okay to read it every now and again.
i think we're trying to say the same things, only we're going about saying it two completely different ways.
how the HECK did this turn into a 21 comment debate??
# posted by : 3:32 PM
: 3:32 PM
Well I just got back in town and my blog EXPLODED on me when I opened it. Just to know you are all here makes me all warm and fuzzy. Now to the main event.
Zhubin, I surrender.
No, but seriously, your major flaw in your argument (and in the food analogy that is being thrown around willy nilly) is that you believe that reading these books AT ALL is bad or at least that's what your posts imply. Now I will agree (in fact I believe I did 456 comments ago) that if all you ever read is Harry Potter and Archie comics, then you may be losing or, at the very least, not improving your skills at analyzing, enjoying, and learning from great literature like Crime and Punishment (sorry, Heart of Darkness was used too much and think C&P was far superior). But that is only if that is all you read.
What Joe and I are saying (and even if you're not, agree with me Joe) is that there is nothing wrong or harmful in enjoying Potter-esque literature along with your Hardy and that people of a higher intelligence, rather than being dumbed down, can enjoy and derive points of interest from said novels.
To make it junk food means it has no merit and is harmful, as I believe you said. I think a better analogy would be that is another food in the literature pyramid that you should enjoy less of than your Conrad's but that it is useful and has worth if taken in moderation.
Zhubin, I surrender.
No, but seriously, your major flaw in your argument (and in the food analogy that is being thrown around willy nilly) is that you believe that reading these books AT ALL is bad or at least that's what your posts imply. Now I will agree (in fact I believe I did 456 comments ago) that if all you ever read is Harry Potter and Archie comics, then you may be losing or, at the very least, not improving your skills at analyzing, enjoying, and learning from great literature like Crime and Punishment (sorry, Heart of Darkness was used too much and think C&P was far superior). But that is only if that is all you read.
What Joe and I are saying (and even if you're not, agree with me Joe) is that there is nothing wrong or harmful in enjoying Potter-esque literature along with your Hardy and that people of a higher intelligence, rather than being dumbed down, can enjoy and derive points of interest from said novels.
To make it junk food means it has no merit and is harmful, as I believe you said. I think a better analogy would be that is another food in the literature pyramid that you should enjoy less of than your Conrad's but that it is useful and has worth if taken in moderation.
Rachel: with all due respect, the comments are jumping up because you either repeat yourself or you add in entirely new points. Your first point was that it's better for people to be reading something than nothing, which I agree with. Your second point was that everyone could use a little variety in their diets, and I disagree because I think bad literature is unhealthy for you, not just a different and equally-good type of literature. Your THIRD point now appears to be that "a little bit" of bad literature is okay every now and then, which is what I have been saying for the past twenty comments and is the entire point of my junk food analogy. So, yes, we do now, finally, agree, if you don't change points again.
Christopher: Here we go, the point of our disagreement!
You say bad literature is not harmful, because you can derive "points of interest" from it. But all you've been able to point out that's good about it is the whole pick-a-Good-side reason. And that's clearly not an intelligent or beneficial aspect, I'm sure you'll agree. Like I said a billion comments before, if you can't point out some other, more enlightening aspect to these books, then how can you say they're anything but junk food?
Christopher: Here we go, the point of our disagreement!
You say bad literature is not harmful, because you can derive "points of interest" from it. But all you've been able to point out that's good about it is the whole pick-a-Good-side reason. And that's clearly not an intelligent or beneficial aspect, I'm sure you'll agree. Like I said a billion comments before, if you can't point out some other, more enlightening aspect to these books, then how can you say they're anything but junk food?
I don't know, I tend to find the "enlightened" writing to often be rather boring and slow. On the other hand I wouldn't be caught dead reading Harry Potter, I'll watch the movies and secretly enjoy them, but you won't see me reading the books. Frankly I find this to be a rather bourgeoise debate any way, with people arguing two different things. I really don't see the problem in intelligent people reading for pleasure, especially those of us who are involved in reading for education or betterment just in general. For someone like me who consistantly has to read rather famous social commentators the last thing I want to do is go read another social commentary. /shrug.
~Brian
~Brian
# posted by : 6:37 PM
: 6:37 PM
In mid-July I traversed Knoxville to a little bookstore known as Borders. I joined the hundreds gathered there to welcome the newest addition to the Harry Potter series. Amidst the pointy hats and oversized spectacles, I noticed something. The crowd at Borders consisted of various and sundry types: the 8-13 year-olds walking around with face paint, the "I know I'm in high school but I think Harry Potter is cool" kids, the parents of the first group, grandmothers there on their own accord, LAW STUDENTS, English teachers, goths and visigoths (well, not really), red, white, black, orange, purple and red. Yes, all were represented at the store, all united for one purpose: to lay hands on The Half-blood Prince.
I for one had a plethora of books on my list this summer. From re-reading Anna Karenina to a first reading of Matthew Pearl's The Dante Club, digesting (I feel compelled to extend the "food" metaphor) both classic and contemporary literature was of utmost importance. Needless to say, the Harry Potter series also made the list. Following an endless amount of acclaim from my colleagues, I finally began reading the first book at the end of May, and I quickly finished the series in about three weeks. Those few weeks were truly entertainment bliss. No, I was not provoked into comtemplative reflection as I had been just weeks before with Dostoevsky. No, I didn't have to consult peers about pronounciation or symbolism. But did I enjoy the respite of this magical series? Yes. I for one will not become "fat" or less interested in "real" literature because I read and enjoyed this series. In fact, I'm more interested in reading the classics, for they once were deemed "less." Recall, please, that Crime and Punishment was originally published chapter by chapter, for Dostoevsky's criminal masterpiece had been written for a newspaper's mass audience. So even this literary giant was once "popular fiction." Could it be that the Harry Potter series could achieve the same status? I'm not suggesting that the series prompts readers to concentrate as intently or as necessarily as the works of Conrad, Hardy, Dickens, Joyce, etc. What I am proposing is that we, especially those of you who have not even read the books, do not possess the gift of hindsight with this series. The likes of Austen, Ibsen, and Bronte were once considered "fluffy" reading. Now, each has established their position in the literary hall of fame, and rightfully so.
Just some points to consider. I also strongly suggest that those who critique the series should be more informed. You simply cannot evaluate this series accurately without actually having read it. And when you do, try to restrain from wearing your own pair of oversized spectacles at the next and final book release party. I'll be a Borders.
(A friend referred me to this discussion. Hope you do not mind my imparting of two cents.)
I for one had a plethora of books on my list this summer. From re-reading Anna Karenina to a first reading of Matthew Pearl's The Dante Club, digesting (I feel compelled to extend the "food" metaphor) both classic and contemporary literature was of utmost importance. Needless to say, the Harry Potter series also made the list. Following an endless amount of acclaim from my colleagues, I finally began reading the first book at the end of May, and I quickly finished the series in about three weeks. Those few weeks were truly entertainment bliss. No, I was not provoked into comtemplative reflection as I had been just weeks before with Dostoevsky. No, I didn't have to consult peers about pronounciation or symbolism. But did I enjoy the respite of this magical series? Yes. I for one will not become "fat" or less interested in "real" literature because I read and enjoyed this series. In fact, I'm more interested in reading the classics, for they once were deemed "less." Recall, please, that Crime and Punishment was originally published chapter by chapter, for Dostoevsky's criminal masterpiece had been written for a newspaper's mass audience. So even this literary giant was once "popular fiction." Could it be that the Harry Potter series could achieve the same status? I'm not suggesting that the series prompts readers to concentrate as intently or as necessarily as the works of Conrad, Hardy, Dickens, Joyce, etc. What I am proposing is that we, especially those of you who have not even read the books, do not possess the gift of hindsight with this series. The likes of Austen, Ibsen, and Bronte were once considered "fluffy" reading. Now, each has established their position in the literary hall of fame, and rightfully so.
Just some points to consider. I also strongly suggest that those who critique the series should be more informed. You simply cannot evaluate this series accurately without actually having read it. And when you do, try to restrain from wearing your own pair of oversized spectacles at the next and final book release party. I'll be a Borders.
(A friend referred me to this discussion. Hope you do not mind my imparting of two cents.)
# posted by : 7:16 PM
: 7:16 PM
Christopher and I debate in a very drawn-out, expansive, and somewhat pretentious style, I'll agree, although we both enjoy it. But we're not debating different things. I'm arguing that literature (which we define as fiction) is bad literature if it does not comment on the human condition or is not otherwise an intellectual challenge. Christopher is arguing that what I define as "bad literature" has actual merit to it that I don't either recognize or value, and that this merit raises bad literature above what I term "junk food" status.
At this point, I am challenging Christopher to give me an example of an attribute of bad literature that gives it merit. I reject his contention that the pick-a-Good-side attribute is meritable, on the grounds that such simplistic worldviews are an empty thrill, and are mentally unhealthy.
Christopher (or someone else) can either offer such an attribute or reject my premises entirely and explain why. What he or anyone else should NOT do is explain why any reading is better than no reading, or why it is okay to read bad literature in small doses. These are NOT disputed.
At this point, I am challenging Christopher to give me an example of an attribute of bad literature that gives it merit. I reject his contention that the pick-a-Good-side attribute is meritable, on the grounds that such simplistic worldviews are an empty thrill, and are mentally unhealthy.
Christopher (or someone else) can either offer such an attribute or reject my premises entirely and explain why. What he or anyone else should NOT do is explain why any reading is better than no reading, or why it is okay to read bad literature in small doses. These are NOT disputed.
Al, with all due respect, your points are not relevant to the discussion here. Whether HP actually is thought-provoking literature or will someday be considered as such is not the point - the point is whether non-thought-provoking literature has other meritable qualities. Christopher and I just use HP as an assumed example of a non-thought-provoking novel.
If you disagree (although it doesn't sound like you do), that's a different topic entirely, and not one I'm willing to enter without having read the book.
If you disagree (although it doesn't sound like you do), that's a different topic entirely, and not one I'm willing to enter without having read the book.
I can't comment much on the usefulness of Harry Potter, but certainly these rather respectable authors can.
Harry Potter's World: Multidisciplinary Critical Perspectives (Routledge, 2003). Elizabeth E. Heilman assistant professor;Michigan State University
Philosophy and Harry Potter (forth coming). Catherine A. Jack Deavel and David Paul Deavel professors at the University of St. Thomas
Wizardly Initiations: Moral, Familial, and Social. Deborah De Rosa, assistant English professor Northern Illinois University. Part of Potter's World: Multidisciplinary Critical Perspectives (Routledge; 2003)
"The phenomenal commercial success of the Harry Potter books has generated a lot of activity in the academic community," says Lana Whited, an English professor at Ferrum College in Virginia. "It would be impossible to say how many people are teaching Harry Potter in their college classes, including at the graduate level, but a lot of them are."
"The serious discussion we ought to be having about the literary merits of Harry Potter is threatened by the cloud of commercialism encircling the books," says Whited. "There's always been a reaction on the part of some academics against what is popular - the prejudice that if a work of literature achieves phenomenal popular success that it must not be any good."
However, I would agree that the Harry Potter books really are not a form of social commentary. Sure, there are aspects of commentary, such as the slave type house elves, but the reality is that these books aren't any sort of commentary at all. They are simply a safe moral universe of Good v Evil, seemingly lacking in the area of moral dilemma. If anything the merit in the books is that they promote values that are considered by most to be rather worth while (ie courage, friendship, honesty, love, ect). Which is fine for kids, but most likely appeals to adults because we are in a society in which dilemma rules supreme, and Potter seems to offer clear-cut black and white choices? It's a form of escapism, just like video games, but I don't particularly see anything wrong with playing a lot of video games as long as the rest of your life is balanced. I suppose that is my argument, that the relevance of Potter as a social commentator is pretty mute as long as the other person isn't consistently attempting to escape reality. However, I tend to agree with Zhubin that one would be hard pressed to find merits in Potter outside the realm of getting young kids interested in reading.
~Brian
Harry Potter's World: Multidisciplinary Critical Perspectives (Routledge, 2003). Elizabeth E. Heilman assistant professor;Michigan State University
Philosophy and Harry Potter (forth coming). Catherine A. Jack Deavel and David Paul Deavel professors at the University of St. Thomas
Wizardly Initiations: Moral, Familial, and Social. Deborah De Rosa, assistant English professor Northern Illinois University. Part of Potter's World: Multidisciplinary Critical Perspectives (Routledge; 2003)
"The phenomenal commercial success of the Harry Potter books has generated a lot of activity in the academic community," says Lana Whited, an English professor at Ferrum College in Virginia. "It would be impossible to say how many people are teaching Harry Potter in their college classes, including at the graduate level, but a lot of them are."
"The serious discussion we ought to be having about the literary merits of Harry Potter is threatened by the cloud of commercialism encircling the books," says Whited. "There's always been a reaction on the part of some academics against what is popular - the prejudice that if a work of literature achieves phenomenal popular success that it must not be any good."
However, I would agree that the Harry Potter books really are not a form of social commentary. Sure, there are aspects of commentary, such as the slave type house elves, but the reality is that these books aren't any sort of commentary at all. They are simply a safe moral universe of Good v Evil, seemingly lacking in the area of moral dilemma. If anything the merit in the books is that they promote values that are considered by most to be rather worth while (ie courage, friendship, honesty, love, ect). Which is fine for kids, but most likely appeals to adults because we are in a society in which dilemma rules supreme, and Potter seems to offer clear-cut black and white choices? It's a form of escapism, just like video games, but I don't particularly see anything wrong with playing a lot of video games as long as the rest of your life is balanced. I suppose that is my argument, that the relevance of Potter as a social commentator is pretty mute as long as the other person isn't consistently attempting to escape reality. However, I tend to agree with Zhubin that one would be hard pressed to find merits in Potter outside the realm of getting young kids interested in reading.
~Brian
# posted by : 8:08 PM
: 8:08 PM
Well I would agree with a lot of what Brian says. In fact, we have had the discussion in the past talking about the need (or at least I think it is a need) for literature that allows us to go to a place, see a world, or imagine a land where our ideals are reality. I think that, more than anything else, shows the validity and worthwhile nature of Potter-esque books. You constantly refer to me not giving you anything deeper than good versus bad, but that is actually the crux of the matter. Surely, a novel's worthiness does not depend completely on its ability to pack itself full of deep philosophy alone? Are you saying that a good story for a good story's sake is useless?
It is, to many people, an escape and while I feel that, if all you read is escapist literature, then you have a problem, to never enjoy a book simply because it gives a simpler view of life seems like you are missing out on something terrible. In fact, to use the food analogy still, it is actually more like salt. You don't want to much of it, but if you cut it out all together, you will die in the desert.
I cannot discuss the themes and imagery of Potter as we could that of Jude the Obscure, but it can be infinitely enjoyable and interesting to those of the intelligencia(sp?) as to the "huddled masses yearning to be free".
Overall, this type of fiction thrives because it tells a good story from a talented writer and talks about issues in a concrete way to a reader who lives in the sea of changing opinion. That, if for no other reason, shows that Harry could turn you into a newt!
Side Note: I would like everyone to note that the two posts of mine that have gotten the most hits were 1)The discussion of the existence of God and 2)Harry Potter. And it looks like Potter might overtake God...scary...
It is, to many people, an escape and while I feel that, if all you read is escapist literature, then you have a problem, to never enjoy a book simply because it gives a simpler view of life seems like you are missing out on something terrible. In fact, to use the food analogy still, it is actually more like salt. You don't want to much of it, but if you cut it out all together, you will die in the desert.
I cannot discuss the themes and imagery of Potter as we could that of Jude the Obscure, but it can be infinitely enjoyable and interesting to those of the intelligencia(sp?) as to the "huddled masses yearning to be free".
Overall, this type of fiction thrives because it tells a good story from a talented writer and talks about issues in a concrete way to a reader who lives in the sea of changing opinion. That, if for no other reason, shows that Harry could turn you into a newt!
Side Note: I would like everyone to note that the two posts of mine that have gotten the most hits were 1)The discussion of the existence of God and 2)Harry Potter. And it looks like Potter might overtake God...scary...
christopher--i don't know how you take down comments, but please take all of mine down here. thanks.
# posted by : 7:27 PM
: 7:27 PM
At the risk of doing something akin running at a hornets nest waving a bat and screaming, i would like to address Zhubin's statements about novels in with a more black and white view of good and evil. He stated that:
you will agree that this attribute is not an enlightening one..."black and white visions of the world are the mark of immaturity"
While I would agree that taking a black and white veiw of the world around you is a sign of immaturity, I believe occaisionally stepping into a world where only clear black and white choices are ever faced can be useful even, if not especially for people of a broader intelligence. There has been much disscussion of the shades of gray found in human existence and explored by the higher literature. However, after mucking around in gray for awhile it can all start to blur into one dull shade.
An occasional dose of escape into a simpler medium from time to time isn't like indulging in junk food, its like returning back to the basics. The simpler worlds in books that Zhubin deems trash can help clarify the many shades of gray found in deeper books, like upping the contrast on a radiograph (excuse the vet analogy, I've been studying for a test.) But to expand the radiograph analogy, when looking at one of those smudgy gray pictures, it can all start to look like one gray blur. It can be enlightening to refer to a very simplistic line drawing in order to get your bearings and begin to focus on the subtle structures of the image.
you will agree that this attribute is not an enlightening one..."black and white visions of the world are the mark of immaturity"
While I would agree that taking a black and white veiw of the world around you is a sign of immaturity, I believe occaisionally stepping into a world where only clear black and white choices are ever faced can be useful even, if not especially for people of a broader intelligence. There has been much disscussion of the shades of gray found in human existence and explored by the higher literature. However, after mucking around in gray for awhile it can all start to blur into one dull shade.
An occasional dose of escape into a simpler medium from time to time isn't like indulging in junk food, its like returning back to the basics. The simpler worlds in books that Zhubin deems trash can help clarify the many shades of gray found in deeper books, like upping the contrast on a radiograph (excuse the vet analogy, I've been studying for a test.) But to expand the radiograph analogy, when looking at one of those smudgy gray pictures, it can all start to look like one gray blur. It can be enlightening to refer to a very simplistic line drawing in order to get your bearings and begin to focus on the subtle structures of the image.
# posted by : 1:52 AM
: 1:52 AM
Since we've kinda flirted with the topic of what makes good art I thought I'd recommend the book, Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud. It's mostly about the comics medium, but he puts it into the perspective of arts as a whole. The book itself is a comic book, so it's kind of fascinating to see the artform used to dissect itself.
This isn't really a response to anyone in particular, but I thought you all might find it an entertaining and worthwhile read. If you live near me I'd be happy to lend out my copy. For a price.
This isn't really a response to anyone in particular, but I thought you all might find it an entertaining and worthwhile read. If you live near me I'd be happy to lend out my copy. For a price.
# posted by : 5:01 PM
: 5:01 PM
Sarah, I find your argument somewhat akin to saying that it's good for readers every now and then to read the alphabet, just to refresh themselves on the basics of English. These stories are SO basic that I don't think it helps to refer to them every now and then. In fact, I'd think mucking around in gray for a long time sharpens your ability to see different shades of it. Living in black and white makes it all the harder to see gray.
As with Christopher, I think you're trying to find something meritable and literate about stories with a simplistic good-versus-evil theme. "Look how refreshing it is to go back to basics!" "Look how enjoyable it is to see some concrete morals in a world of changing opinions!"
But these are all fancy ways of saying that you enjoy these books because they obviate the need for thought and complexity. The good guys win and the bad guys die. And that's fine, in very small doses. Sometimes you just want to eat a bag of chips. But this satisfying feeling should not be confused with "interesting," as Christopher says. A good story is a great reason to read a book, but a story of good-versus-evil is not a good story.
Look, Christopher, it makes no difference to me if you want to read Harry Potter. But don't rationalize it as "infinitely interesting" or necessary for the intelligentsia. Accept that your mind is now in a long but steady state of decline, and it's time for Rachael to start looking into nursing homes.
As with Christopher, I think you're trying to find something meritable and literate about stories with a simplistic good-versus-evil theme. "Look how refreshing it is to go back to basics!" "Look how enjoyable it is to see some concrete morals in a world of changing opinions!"
But these are all fancy ways of saying that you enjoy these books because they obviate the need for thought and complexity. The good guys win and the bad guys die. And that's fine, in very small doses. Sometimes you just want to eat a bag of chips. But this satisfying feeling should not be confused with "interesting," as Christopher says. A good story is a great reason to read a book, but a story of good-versus-evil is not a good story.
Look, Christopher, it makes no difference to me if you want to read Harry Potter. But don't rationalize it as "infinitely interesting" or necessary for the intelligentsia. Accept that your mind is now in a long but steady state of decline, and it's time for Rachael to start looking into nursing homes.
Zhubin, What do you mean a good versus evil story can't be a good story? It is entirely possible to deal with a situation in which right and wrong are clearly defined and still tell a very powerful story. Complexity in a story may come from many directions. The reactions of the characters to a situation, or the struggles of the human intellegence in attempts to circumvent facing the facts of right and wrong can be just as thought provoking and complex as stories in where the key is puzzling through all those shades of gray.
I agree that constant consumption of bad literature and books well below ones reading level is bad. In fact I go so far to beleive that there are some books which an intelligent person should never ever read (I survived a period in undergrad where I read more harlequin romances than I care to admit, and I am a stupider person for it.) Where I begin to disagree with you is at the point of just what qualifies s as worthless literature. I don't think that Harry Potter is completely worthless, but you already said you weren't arguing that point. So until you more clearly outline what you think qualifies as worthless literature, I can't know how to defend reading it, or if I even would want to.
As for not needing to refer to the alphabet and the basics of English, surely even the great Zhubin occaisionally comes across a word he nas to sound out. No? Never? Not even if it's just to pause for half a beat? Dacryocystorhinostomy
I agree that constant consumption of bad literature and books well below ones reading level is bad. In fact I go so far to beleive that there are some books which an intelligent person should never ever read (I survived a period in undergrad where I read more harlequin romances than I care to admit, and I am a stupider person for it.) Where I begin to disagree with you is at the point of just what qualifies s as worthless literature. I don't think that Harry Potter is completely worthless, but you already said you weren't arguing that point. So until you more clearly outline what you think qualifies as worthless literature, I can't know how to defend reading it, or if I even would want to.
As for not needing to refer to the alphabet and the basics of English, surely even the great Zhubin occaisionally comes across a word he nas to sound out. No? Never? Not even if it's just to pause for half a beat? Dacryocystorhinostomy
# posted by : 9:00 PM
: 9:00 PM
Sarah, you're right - what I meant was that a story that was solely about good vs. evil is not a good story. To the extent that a story delves into realistic depictions of humanity, such as the character reactions and intelligence struggles you mentioned, it can be meritable. But of course these attributes are complex ones and raise the story above mindless simplicity.
Clearly, there is no bright line separating good literature from bad - it's a spectrum, and novels that are high quality in one area may be poor quality in others. A novel that has a good vs. evil theme but has brilliant insights into the nature of a person's character, for example.
I think non-thought-provoking literature is worthless literature, and there is certainly room for debate about what is thought provoking and what is not. But my argument with Christopher is whether admittedly non-thought-provoking literature can have value. I say no. Christopher says yes, as he squeals with delight over Harry's hilarious hijinks.
Let's not get too much into the alphabet metaphor. But I will say that your example proves my point. I know the alphabet very well, but it doesn't help at all in figuring out what the heck that word of yours means. Going back to such simple basics doesn't allow you to grasp more complex issues any clearer.
Clearly, there is no bright line separating good literature from bad - it's a spectrum, and novels that are high quality in one area may be poor quality in others. A novel that has a good vs. evil theme but has brilliant insights into the nature of a person's character, for example.
I think non-thought-provoking literature is worthless literature, and there is certainly room for debate about what is thought provoking and what is not. But my argument with Christopher is whether admittedly non-thought-provoking literature can have value. I say no. Christopher says yes, as he squeals with delight over Harry's hilarious hijinks.
Let's not get too much into the alphabet metaphor. But I will say that your example proves my point. I know the alphabet very well, but it doesn't help at all in figuring out what the heck that word of yours means. Going back to such simple basics doesn't allow you to grasp more complex issues any clearer.
You know, Sarah does a nice job here of isolating--amidst a simple discussion of children's literature, of all things--the core of our disagreements, the ultimate point we always come back to, no matter what the issue. Sweet, sweet black and white vs. cold, unfeeling gray. Just kidding there, but seriously:
Is it best to live within the shades of gray, but be conscious of black and white; or to dwell in the land of black and white, trying to remain balanced by an awareness of the middle ground? Furthermore, does living in gray sharpen your ability to see the various shades, or dull it? Does living in black and white make you oblivious to the gray, or temper your understanding of it?
Zhubin has already cited the former, but I'd have to insist upon the latter. And therein also request that we find a new term for "bad" literature, because as I understand our use of it, I don't actually consider the stuff bad.
As for right v. wrong being elementary, keep in mind that Chris and I (and maybe some of you others, for that matter) still believe that 1) absolute good exists and 2) it does triumph over evil. Tales posing moral dilemma are, then, useful for maintaining perspective and stretching mental boundaries; but not the only route to legitimacy and certainly not of necessity.
In that light, I would argue that very little literature in fact qualifies as non-thought-provoking. I agree with Zhubin's latest admission that we are dealing with a spectrum, so then again, we may need to redefine that term as well.
Is it best to live within the shades of gray, but be conscious of black and white; or to dwell in the land of black and white, trying to remain balanced by an awareness of the middle ground? Furthermore, does living in gray sharpen your ability to see the various shades, or dull it? Does living in black and white make you oblivious to the gray, or temper your understanding of it?
Zhubin has already cited the former, but I'd have to insist upon the latter. And therein also request that we find a new term for "bad" literature, because as I understand our use of it, I don't actually consider the stuff bad.
As for right v. wrong being elementary, keep in mind that Chris and I (and maybe some of you others, for that matter) still believe that 1) absolute good exists and 2) it does triumph over evil. Tales posing moral dilemma are, then, useful for maintaining perspective and stretching mental boundaries; but not the only route to legitimacy and certainly not of necessity.
In that light, I would argue that very little literature in fact qualifies as non-thought-provoking. I agree with Zhubin's latest admission that we are dealing with a spectrum, so then again, we may need to redefine that term as well.
I have been looking for sites like this for a long time. Thank you! best laser radar detector didrex 270 pills 3 month supply didrex crushed leadership training sc pregnancy and celexa canada 2004 botox statistics Scottsdale cooking school Volvo used trucks ball bid dragon power z Phentermine shipped to kentucky Thg supplements http://www.brand-name-tenuate.info/5001forexbroker.html
# posted by : 10:24 AM
: 10:24 AM
I have been looking for sites like this for a long time. Thank you! web search engine optimization Chicago electrical jobs Uk affiliate pay per click oxycontin and prostitution Celexa affects side Micro penis a very good thing http://www.diet-pills-didrex-3-month-supply-cheap.info Truck rental in norton va virginia Cooking school bologna Mpg minivan Safari mosquito netting home decor liposuction cost straight edge shirt moen faucets live poker California caveman keno online Tokyo fragrance
Post a Comment
# posted by : 4:51 PM
: 4:51 PM << Home
