Harry Potter sucks

[Leisha]

Well said Pelagic! Whether you enjoy her books or not, she's a billionare who sells more copies than any aspiring author ever could. I say good luck to her -- and long may her career continue.

At least she and her children aren't living off benefits anymore!

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by The Pelagic Argosy

Yesterday, I read in the latest edition of Wired magazine a blurb about J.K. Rowling. It described her as: "The first person on the planet to become a billionaire by writing books." And Forbes magazine calls her the second richest female entertainer in the world, behind Oprah Winfrey.

Rowling's detractors all have their pet theories as to why she, ahem, "sucks." Harry Potter is unoriginal, full of cliches and plot holes. The characters are annoying. The books are underwritten, or possibly overwritten. Rowling just can't hold a candle to this writer or that.

So where are the theories explaining why, with the possible exception of God, she is the most successful writer since the invention of papyrus? (I can hear you "literary snobs" scoffing at my definition of success, favoring the unsophisticated gauges of popularity and money over artistic merit. But please humor me for a moment.)

So what was Rowling's secret formula for success? I'd like to know because, if I can't be a masterful writer, I'd like at least like to console myself in a mansion.

Before the Harry Potter phenomenon, conventional wisdom stated that you don't become a best seller by writing either children's literature or fantasy. Safer bets would have been romance, horror, courtroom dramas, or something with dinosaurs or vampires. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was rejected several times before it was published...and with good reason. It was a gamble.

So, apparently, Rowling did not jump on the "wizard school" craze that was sweeping the children's fantasy shelves during the mid '90s. What was it then?

It must be the romance the permeated the pages of Philosopher's Stone. No? Hmmm...All the cool graphic violence that makes video games so popular? The sex? The car chases? Bisexual vampires?

The theory that she is a hack who got lucky by luring the masses with some sensationalistic drek doesn't hold up.

So what was her secret then? Here's my theory. Harry Potter does not, in fact, suck. Rowling's style is engaging. The characters are well drawn. It's suspenseful. It's just the right mix of humor, horror, romance, suspense, whimsy, myth, and teen angst. (There's even courtroom drama, if you count the scene in Order of the Phoenix where Harry is questioned by the ministry. No bisexual vampires, but then, that's been done to death.)

I know it's radical, but this is my working definition of "good writing."

Bravo, just bravo.

I find it tiresome really. The detractors dislike it because they believe it distinguishes themselves from the masses. They so desperately want to feel that they are above books like Harry Potter.

People who claim to have a deep sense of literary history but "feel nothing one way or the other" about JKR and the series contradict themselves by the very statement. She is more than a phenomenon. Books haven't flown off the shelves like that... ever.

The series rocks. The seventh book will rock.

End of story.

[Saltheart]

I would actually think she's this popular because she released the first three books in a short enough time span as to hook the readers to the series. The first and second books were god awful, but the third was pretty good -- and ended in suspense, the element needed to engage readers to go on with the series. If she released them in longer time intervals from each other, I feel she might not have had the fanbase to build upon and reach this level of fame. But that's just me, thinking about why many great authors are so obscure to the general public.

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

I find it tiresome really. The detractors dislike it because they believe it distinguishes themselves from the masses. They so desperately want to feel that they are above books like Harry Potter.
.

Why do you find it so hard to believe that some people just don't like HP, Marvolo? I don't like her, and I resent the charge of literary snobbery - I've read many, many books - most I've liked, some I haven't. I like most of Heinlein - one or two, I don't. I like Agatha Christie, regardless of the fact that she is one of the most panned authors in her genre. Hell, I like Battlefield Earth!
Admiration of HP is fine - you go ahead and enjoy them. But don't ascribe reasons to me for not liking the books, please. And if you don't want to read posts criticising JKR, join one of the Harry Potter Adoration sites - there's plenty of them.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

I find it tiresome really. The detractors dislike it because they believe it distinguishes themselves from the masses. They so desperately want to feel that they are above books like Harry Potter.

People who claim to have a deep sense of literary history but "feel nothing one way or the other" about JKR and the series contradict themselves by the very statement. She is more than a phenomenon. Books haven't flown off the shelves like that... ever.

The series rocks. The seventh book will rock.

End of story.

I'll agree that I find the highly emotional responses to be tiresome, but debate over any writer who has merit is a good thing -- good for that writer's ultimate status in literary history, as well as good for honing critical reading. So it is hardly to JKR's detriment to offer honest opinions on the matter.

Mostly, though, what is tiresome are these ad hominem attacks on the people who offer views contrary to those you hold. They serve no purpose other than to derail discussion and debate into personalities -- and that is simply not helpful or informative in any way.

As for the two statements being contradictory -- no, because they are dealing with two different things. One is an overview of literary history and a perception of what tends to last and to remain an important influence on literature, the other is about a specific writer and the -- as you correctly point out -- phenomenon she and her work have become. This phenomenon is not simply literary: the books did not sell all that well at first; then, when they did, movies began being made, which were also popular; and when those were done with such large budgets, there was considerably more advertising for them and for the books, which also got people interested; plus there was the heated debate (as these were YA or children's books) about Satanism, witchcraft, and all the rest of that rot, which focused media attention and got people to reading them to find out what the fuss was about... and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Now, you put all that together, and you tend to have a phenomenon indeed... but how much of sales are actually due to literary worth, and how much to it being an "in" thing for now, or because of curiosity due to the controversies, or because of the films getting people who might not ordinarily read the books going back to compare... only time will tell. But all of that does have an impact on the books' sales. Objectively speaking (or as objective as I can be, anyway), I am more or less indifferent to JKR's work, because I see it as neither a waste of paper nor the Holy Grail. I see them as competently-written, entertaining books with some good lessons to offer, characters one can become very fond of, a rather nifty premise, and some very good atmospheric scenes here and there throughout the series, not to mention a rather nice sense of humor.

But in the final analysis, I don't see them being a truly important piece of literary history overall. Do I think they'll be around for a while? Yes. Do I think there will be people who read and enjoy them for some time to come? Yes. Quite some time, actually, with having films and such to draw new people into them as time goes by -- an advantage many books don't have. But I do expect that, within the next decade to twenty years, that we'll see them recede to their proper, honorable but not exceptional (save for the brief -- and it is brief, speaking historically -- phenomenon addressed above) place in literary history. That isn't snobbery -- that's simply using my experience and knowledge (again, earned over several decades of reading and study) of the big picture where literature is concerned... and putting things in perspective.

Simply put -- there's very little that makes a major, lasting impact on literature as a whole. For all her virtues, JKR is unlikely to be in that number.....

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

I'll agree that I find the highly emotional responses to be tiresome, but debate over any writer who has merit is a good thing -- good for that writer's ultimate status in literary history, as well as good for honing critical reading. So it is hardly to JKR's detriment to offer honest opinions on the matter.

Mostly, though, what is tiresome are these ad hominem attacks on the people who offer views contrary to those you hold. They serve no purpose other than to derail discussion and debate into personalities -- and that is simply not helpful or informative in any way.

As for the two statements being contradictory -- no, because they are dealing with two different things. One is an overview of literary history and a perception of what tends to last and to remain an important influence on literature, the other is about a specific writer and the -- as you correctly point out -- phenomenon she and her work have become. This phenomenon is not simply literary: the books did not sell all that well at first; then, when they did, movies began being made, which were also popular; and when those were done with such large budgets, there was considerably more advertising for them and for the books, which also got people interested; plus there was the heated debate (as these were YA or children's books) about Satanism, witchcraft, and all the rest of that rot, which focused media attention and got people to reading them to find out what the fuss was about... and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Now, you put all that together, and you tend to have a phenomenon indeed... but how much of sales are actually due to literary worth, and how much to it being an "in" thing for now, or because of curiosity due to the controversies, or because of the films getting people who might not ordinarily read the books going back to compare... only time will tell. But all of that does have an impact on the books' sales. Objectively speaking (or as objective as I can be, anyway), I am more or less indifferent to JKR's work, because I see it as neither a waste of paper nor the Holy Grail. I see them as competently-written, entertaining books with some good lessons to offer, characters one can become very fond of, a rather nifty premise, and some very good atmospheric scenes here and there throughout the series, not to mention a rather nice sense of humor.

But in the final analysis, I don't see them being a truly important piece of literary history overall. Do I think they'll be around for a while? Yes. Do I think there will be people who read and enjoy them for some time to come? Yes. Quite some time, actually, with having films and such to draw new people into them as time goes by -- an advantage many books don't have. But I do expect that, within the next decade to twenty years, that we'll see them recede to their proper, honorable but not exceptional (save for the brief -- and it is brief, speaking historically -- phenomenon addressed above) place in literary history. That isn't snobbery -- that's simply using my experience and knowledge (again, earned over several decades of reading and study) of the big picture where literature is concerned... and putting things in perspective.

Simply put -- there's very little that makes a major, lasting impact on literature as a whole. For all her virtues, JKR is unlikely to be in that number.....

Any my point is this: All that crap doesn't matter. More people have read JKR's books. That is literary history. You can write the most deep, philosophical BS in the world and it doesn't matter when a few professors and a handful of others golf clap on its merit, artistic quality and whatnot, while millions read another book the day it comes out. Which has greater impact?

Other than Shakespeare, can you name an author who has the amazing reader base JKR does, or has ever had?

Honestly, do you think most people actually read the sort of work you tout as being masterful or insightful or purposefully ambigious? They don't? They are busy reading Koontz, King, and Rowling to name a few.

This is what kills me about the whole debate. You fail to see the most important point. People like you always assume that you or your academia brethren decide what is literary history, or what has merit. You're just another critic. The popular writer is the traveling poet of today's world, and you're missing the show.

Also, just because you read "tripe" from ages ago doesn't mean it somehow validates your argument that JKR is going to slip into being a footnote later on. Unless each of those stories sold more copies than any other book except the Bible, did they?

Edit: P.S. The books sold the films. It worked in reverse after the films ramped up. But the books were already amazing hits.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by pyan

Why do you find it so hard to believe that some people just don't like HP, Marvolo? I don't like her, and I resent the charge of literary snobbery - I've read many, many books - most I've liked, some I haven't. I like most of Heinlein - one or two, I don't. I like Agatha Christie, regardless of the fact that she is one of the most panned authors in her genre. Hell, I like Battlefield Earth!
Admiration of HP is fine - you go ahead and enjoy them. But don't ascribe reasons to me for not liking the books, please. And if you don't want to read posts criticising JKR, join one of the Harry Potter Adoration sites - there's plenty of them.

Saying you don't like them is one thing. But saying that They aren't anything to get excited about and they'll end up as a footnote in literary history is another. That is what the debate is about.

Battlefield Earth....gah.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

Any my point is this: All that crap doesn't matter. More people have read JKR's books. That is literary history. You can write the most deep, philosophical BS in the world and it doesn't matter when a few professors and a handful of others golf clap on its merit, artistic quality and whatnot, while millions read another book the day it comes out. Which has greater impact?

Other than Shakespeare, can you name an author who has the amazing reader base JKR does, or has ever had?

Honestly, do you think most people actually read the sort of work you tout as being masterful or insightful or purposefully ambigious? They don't? They are busy reading Koontz, King, and Rowling to name a few.

This is what kills me about the whole debate. You fail to see the most important point. People like you always assume that you or your academia brethren decide what is literary history, or what has merit. You're just another critic. The popular writer is the traveling poet of today's world, and you're missing the show.

Also, just because you read "tripe" from ages ago doesn't mean it somehow validates your argument that JKR is going to slip into being a footnote later on. Unless each of those stories sold more copies than any other book except the Bible, did they?

Edit: P.S. The books sold the films. It worked in reverse after the films ramped up. But the books were already amazing hits.

1. My reference to the "tripe" was not intended to validate my arguments about JKR, but to refute your ad hominem attack -- an assumption based on no evidence whatsoever -- that I feel it necessary to see myself as "superior" to those who read "popular" books. Point being: I enjoy quite a few "popular" writers and always have. I'm a big fan of a good, enjoyable story. So your assumptions on that score are completely off-beam.

2. My "academia brethren"? Once again, a rather huge assumption. I'm not a member of academe -- never have been. And, once again: No, academicians do not decide this; I've already dealt with that earlier. What does is how the writer's work appeals to people over a long period of time, and I'm basing my judgment on those things that have survived as well as those which were immensely popular (often with academe) and are now largely forgotten, and looking at Rowling's work in that light. Could I be mistaken? Certainly. But I do tend to have a pretty good feel for these things based on intense and searching reading over a very wide (and sometimes deep) variety of writing, and I stand by my judgment. Again, though, only time will tell.

3. Yes, a huge number of people have read her books. A huge number of people have read books by many writers... and then those writers are forgotten, as time goes on, or are remembered only by a much smaller number. As I said above, I expect this to be what happens to JKR, because I'm basing my view on the long-term perspective. All the points you raise are based on the short-term. Popular writers that continue to last tend to have more "meat" than JKR does in her work. Hers suits the current taste, but will it continue to resonate with people 30, 40, 50, 100 years down the line? On that, I have very serious doubts.

4. On her place in literary history: When I say she'll be a minor footnote, I mean just that. In comparison with (as you note) Shakespeare, Dickens, Tolstoy, Dostoiefsky, Poe, Faulkner (only a few of which, by the way, were considered worthwhile by academicians during their day or for some time after), etc., my contention is that she simply won't be in that rarefied a strata. She will be remembered for the number of books sold, and because she was a popular writer for a brief span of time, and possibly for once again engaging young readers. That really is a minor thing in perspective -- valid, and something to be proud of but (once again looking at the big picture) nonetheless minor.

5. As for which has greater impact? The one that lasts. The one that influences other writers, and upon which they call for inspiration in their writing -- the one which continues, over a long period, to resonate with readers. Damned few writers at all achieve that, popular or otherwise. Beaumont and Fletcher were upon everyone's lips during their day. They wrote wonderful plays -- witty, sparkling, dialogue, more than slightly scandalous, and were honored by the best of their generation as well as the populace in general. Now they are read chiefly by academicians or specialists in the theater of that period. Shakespeare underwent a decline for nearly a century before once again being recognized as a great writer. Poe would have been almost forgotten had not European writers recognized what he had to offer. The problem is that people in general have a notoriously short memory about such things, and the hottest sellers in history are most often the ones most quickly forgotten and replaced by the next hot seller. That's a fact of history. Just go look up the immense bestsellers of the past, and see how many people remember at all. Once again, it isn't just what people read, but what they remember -- what continues to touch those deep emotional chords over time -- that matters. Those are the ones that are most influential, and that last.

And as for this bit:

Honestly, do you think most people actually read the sort of work you tout as being masterful or insightful or purposefully ambigious? They don't? They are busy reading Koontz, King, and Rowling to name a few.

What are you assuming I'm referring to? Shakespeare is one. Poe is another. Lovecraft, Dickens, Shelley (both Percy and Mary), Keats, Defoe, Heinlein, Faulkner, Eddison, Doyle, Byron, Baudelaire, Borges, the Brontës (especially Charlotte and Emily), Bierce, M. R. James, Henry James.... these are a few, and all of them continue to be read decades or centuries after their deaths - and not just by students assigned them in classes, but by average people who enjoy good books -- and that is because the richness and complexity of what they had to say allows for continued application for readers long after they themselves are gone. They also continue to inspire other writers, and to influence popular culture in various ways -- many of them have introduced terms, concepts, or characters that are a part of common language, from Frankenstein to Cthulhu, from David Copperfield to Wuthering Heights, from Robinson Crusoe to the classic English ghost story. Unless Rowling hits such a chord over time... she, like Edward Bulwer-Lytton (who was possibly the most popular writer of his day, and who did influence writers of his day, and who remained a bestseller for some decades) will end up a minor footnote, having very little lasting impact. And, because of the type of stories she writes, and the (necessarily) somewhat simplistic way in which those stories are presented... this is likely to be the case.

Again, time will tell. But, judging from my experience with literature and, again, an historical overview of the whole... my estimation is that she's a worthy, but minor writer who, like many others in the past, caught the public fancy for a short time... and then is largely relegated to a footnote in history. This is a brutal fact of the way it tends to work, whether we like it or not. Popularity -- even immense popularity -- in the short run means absolutely nothing in the long term. It just doesn't, and never has.

As for "The popular writer is the traveling poet of today's world, and you're missing the show"... well, I won't dispute that. But how many of the traveling poets of the past are remembered? Out of all the trouvères and troubadors, how many names -- or how many of their songs -- have remained a part of our culture? As for being a critic -- you say that as if it's a bad thing. While I'm not a professional critic, I do use my critical faculties when I read (or watch a film, or listen to music, or what-have-you), as I discriminate between enjoyable fluff and something that truly "hits the spot" emotionally on a deeper level. However, I am not an unduly harsh critic, as I have a high regard for storytellers and wish them well, am always happy to see people reading more, and I agree with you that they fulfill an important role in our lives.. they spin their webs of dream, and allow us to see their handiwork; and one who does so conscientiously deserves respect, in my opinion. But that does not keep me from seeing the flaws, or from seeing them against the larger background and making a fairly good judgment on how likely they are to survive in the long run.

While I'm not drawing a parallel here between their talent, what I see happening with Rowling and her popularity is similar to what happened to H. P. Lovecraft following his death, when it got to the point where no one could say anything against him or his work without raising the ire of his fans, who could see no wrong in either the man or what he wrote. It took a long time to reach a more balanced appraisal of his proper place (and even now, it is still somewhat uncertain) -- largely because of that idolatrous view, which tended to repulse those with more discriminating taste. Such things tend to do a writer's reputation considerable harm, as it raises bad blood. A more objective view, noting both faults and strengths, serves them better.

[Dave]

I realise this is a long thread and not many people are going to read it all, but we are now arguing points that have already been argued earlier. Isn't it time to close this? Only Time can tell if people in the year 2476 still read about Harry Potter and revere JK Rowling as one of the world's greatest literary geniuses.

[Lenny]

Originally Posted by Dave

I realise this is a long thread and not many people are going to read it all, but we are now arguing points that have already been argued earlier. Isn't it time to close this? Only Time can tell if people in the year 2476 still read about Harry Potter and revere JK Rowling as one of the world's greatest literary geniuses.

I've just read the masterpiece that is JD's latest post, if that counts as people still reading it?

I'd keep it open just for the amusement factor - it's not everyday that you get to see people on the forums accusing JD of literary snobbery!

[pyan]

I agree - as long as the ad hom attacks don't get any worse, and the point of the thread, the literary worth of JKR and the HP books, stays as the main issue.
I appreciate that no-one is likely to change their minds because of what they've read here, but as long as new posters keep coming forward to add their POV, it provides an interesting insight into the split in readers over the books.

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Objectively speaking (or as objective as I can be, anyway), I am more or less indifferent to JKR's work, because I see it as neither a waste of paper nor the Holy Grail. I see them as competently-written, entertaining books with some good lessons to offer, characters one can become very fond of, a rather nifty premise, and some very good atmospheric scenes here and there throughout the series, not to mention a rather nice sense of humor.

...we'll see them recede to their proper, honorable but not exceptional (save for the brief -- and it is brief, speaking historically -- phenomenon addressed above) place in literary history.

Woah, J.D. This review is almost, positively...glowing.

We may win him over yet, Marvolo.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by The Pelagic Argosy

Woah, J.D. This review is almost, positively...glowing.

We may win him over yet, Marvolo.

LOL! Oh, I needed that. Thanks!

Seriously, it's been a real meat-grinder of a few days, and that response in particular hit exactly the right note! I owe you one very big favor!

Have a good day, P.A.!

[suupaabaka]

Rowling's done a superb job of doing what she set out to do.

I personally don't like the Potter books. I just couldn't get into them, but this is arguably because I've had a lot more exposure to the genre than children and teenagers. I've followed Severian through his strange adventures on Urth, had my emotions kicked around by the multifaceted denizens of G.R.R. Martin's epic and been plagued by the questions that Erikson throws in my face. However, it's unrealistic to expect any but the most precocious children to have read as widely as an adult who enjoys reading. I'd also venture to say that a large proportion of Harry Potter readers, both children and adult, probably haven't read The Lord of The Rings let alone contemporary science fiction and fantasy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that their tastes in the genre (and who knows, perhaps in literature in general) would also not be as developed.

Harry Potter was probably written for kids who come home from school to sit down to watch Ninja Turtles (I don't know what kids watch, these days). I'd go so far as to presume that the Potter series wasn't written with the demographic of these forums in mind; it's remarkable that it has indeed reached out to so many people of all ages. Indeed, they started out as bedtime stories for Rowling's children. In transcribing those stories, she's obviously touched the hearts and wallets of millions.

[Joel007]

Hmm, since my wife has started to read Potter she's convinced that they are the best books in the world and are without equal. Of course I just have to gently remind her that she's read less than one tenth the number of books I have, and I've barely scratched the surface of the genre.
It seems to be a common failing of people to get extremely fanatical about these books and then all but forget about them a year or so later.