MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

gmw · 12-24-2010, 05:58 AM

GraceKrispy and I mentioned accessibility some posts back, and now I see HarryT mentioning that Harry Potter was not "great literature" but was a very good read. Given the number of you that disagree with my OP, what I want to know now is why accessibility is not considered to be a very important part of a good writing?

The the term "great literature" seems to be a phrase reserved for those scary books that seem more about showing off how clever an author can be with words rather than actually entertaining the reader (apologies, that is excessively cynical but expresses a common perception I think). To me there seems a certain amount of snob value here, "oh no, that's not Literature so of course it's not well written". Fastolfe equates popularity with mediocrity. Does that mean that my original post was totally wrong, that writing is not about communication but about how much smarter the writer is than the general population? Can someone logically justify to me why a readily accessible series like Harry Potter should not be considered well written if only on the grounds of accessibility to young and old alike? It got people reading who have hardly ever read before. It's not something I've ever heard said of the many books I've heard described as great literature.

12-24-2010, 05:58 AM	#77
gmw cacoethes scribendi Posts: 5,818 Karma: 137770742 Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Australia Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650	GraceKrispy and I mentioned accessibility some posts back, and now I see HarryT mentioning that Harry Potter was not "great literature" but was a very good read. Given the number of you that disagree with my OP, what I want to know now is why accessibility is not considered to be a very important part of a good writing? The the term "great literature" seems to be a phrase reserved for those scary books that seem more about showing off how clever an author can be with words rather than actually entertaining the reader (apologies, that is excessively cynical but expresses a common perception I think). To me there seems a certain amount of snob value here, "oh no, that's not Literature so of course it's not well written". Fastolfe equates popularity with mediocrity. Does that mean that my original post was totally wrong, that writing is not about communication but about how much smarter the writer is than the general population? Can someone logically justify to me why a readily accessible series like Harry Potter should not be considered well written if only on the grounds of accessibility to young and old alike? It got people reading who have hardly ever read before. It's not something I've ever heard said of the many books I've heard described as great literature. Last edited by gmw; 12-24-2010 at 06:01 AM.