Harry Potter - Popular, but never to be a Classic

[leebase]

The reason to read Shakespeare's isn't "these are the best written stories" but they are the foundation stories to so much of western literature. Even when something isn't a direct take on Shakespeare it is often inspired by his work.

But I agree...the classics are not about "learning to love reading". They are "reading to become cultured/encultured".

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by leebase

I don't equate "classic" with "tops in entertainment". Classics should and do cover a wide set of genre's. I doubt anybody will like them all. But if we "all" read them, then it forms a commonality in society.

Most all of the books I read are "trash". Sci Fi, Spy Thrillers and the like. I read many of the classics in school...which is the point of having classics.

But the "classics" that are forced upon the students are rubbish. The teachers need to pick more modern books that are more relevant to the lives of the students. Reading books that are in olde English or are written in a way that books are not today turns them off to reading for pleasure. I blame school for the decline in reading.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

The problem with that opinion is that many books considered classics were foundations and originals the subsequent authors built upon and/or imitated. The LoTR mostly founded the modern fantasy genre, for example. Sherlock Holmes did the same with detective genre. They were pioneers, forerunners. Without them those genres would not exist in the same form as we know them today. So how could you take them out of their time and reimplant in some future time period? That future time period would no longer be the same without their predecessors. Moreover, many original works seem like cliches today exactly because thousands of other authors have imitated and copied them. They were original when they were written. You cannot take them out of that context.

The Hobbit/TLoTR and Sherlock Holmes are still readable and enjoyable today. So they do fit my definition.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The Hobbit/TLoTR and Sherlock Holmes are still readable and enjoyable today. So they do fit my definition.

Yes, and so are Pride & Prejudice, and Jane Eyre. Just not to you personally. They're not and never will be "just average romance novels" any more than LoTR is your average fantasy novel.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by leebase

The reason to read Shakespeare's isn't "these are the best written stories" but they are the foundation stories to so much of western literature. Even when something isn't a direct take on Shakespeare it is often inspired by his work.

But I agree...the classics are not about "learning to love reading". They are "reading to become cultured/encultured".

I don't care if a lot of other books are based upon Shakespeare's work. They olde English used back them is not appropriate to force kids to read. It's not relevant.

Kids don't need to be cultured/enriched when being forced to read some really awful books in school. These books are not mandatory and the teachers can pick different books. I read Chaucer in school and I hated it. If the teacher wants to pick a similar buy much better book, pick Hyperion by Dan Simmons. There are ways to teach what you want to teach without ruining the lives of the students. I think forcing thee awful books on the students in a way that makes then no want to read is ruining their lives.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Yes, and so are Pride & Prejudice, and Jane Eyre. Just not to you personally. They're not and never will be "just average romance novels" any more than LoTR is your average fantasy novel.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies would engage the students much more then the original.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies would engage the students much more then the original.

Depends. The boys, maybe. Personally I detest zombies. Eugh.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Depends. The boys, maybe. Personally I detest zombies. Eugh.

Too old to be a boy, but this Y-chromosome carrier also detests zombies, fwiw.

[SteveEisenberg]

Two questions:

1. Will there be classics in the future -- books (and poems, and plays) from distant past generations that there is a semi-consensus are better than most of today's? My impression is that it is becoming less common to assign works, written more than a century ago, in American high schools, but I could be wrong. And even if I am correct, classics could make a come-back

2. Is the Harry Potter series great literature, whatever we mean by that? I've only read one of the books, and didn't think so. Of course, just one person's opinion.

So Potter has two big hurdles to climb over before becoming a classic. One is that society would have to value old books, and the other is that society would have to value that series.

If it did become a classic, there might be a semi-consensus that one book in the series is Rowling's Hamlet, Jane Eyre, or Middlemarch. Does anyone here have an opinion on which stands out, and, briefly, why?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But the "classics" that are forced upon the students are rubbish. The teachers need to pick more modern books that are more relevant to the lives of the students. Reading books that are in olde English or are written in a way that books are not today turns them off to reading for pleasure. I blame school for the decline in reading.

Is calculus relevant to the lives of the students? Physics? Medieval history? Geometry? I’m old school, but anyone who thinks kids are in school for enjoyment has missed the point, IMO.

I blame parents for the decline in reading. If kids read with their parents when they were little, and saw their parents reading for pleasure as they got older, it wouldn’t be an issue.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I think forcing thee awful books on the students in a way that makes then no want to read is ruining their lives.

.
Perhaps just a little hyperbole there?

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by issybird

I blame parents for the decline in reading. If kids read with their parents when they were little, and saw their parents reading for pleasure as they got older, it wouldn’t be an issue. ?

While I agree with the rest of your post, I don't really think it's the parents either. It's internet/social media/computer games these days and it was TV in the case of previous generations. I know several people whose parents were readers and read with their children, but who never read for pleasure themselves now that they're adults. OTOH my parents were not readers, but at least they bought books for our home, so I had plenty of reading material to devour since I was very little. I was a compulsive reader as a child and as a teenager, without anyone trying to instruct me what or how to read. And I was not very interested in TV. Some of the other children I knew liked to read too, some didn't. Some started to read for pleasure as teenagers. Some never did. Of course there were far fewer other entertainments then than there are today. So many people probably read just from boredom.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

While I agree with the rest of your post, I don't really think it's the parents either. It's internet/social media/computer games these days and it was TV in the case of previous generations. I know several people whose parents were readers and read with their children, but who never read for pleasure themselves now that they're adults. OTOH my parents were not readers, but at least they bought books for our home, so I had plenty of reading material to devour since I was very little. I was a compulsive reader as a child and as a teenager, without anyone trying to instruct me what or how to read. And I was not very interested in TV. Some of the other children I knew liked to read too, some didn't. Some started to read for pleasure as teenagers. Some never did. Of course there were far fewer other entertainments then than there are today. So many people probably read just from boredom.

I figure parents control the screen time, too, whether it be tv, internet, computer games or social media. Obviously they have to loosen the reins as the kids get older, but a house that doesn’t have the tv on all the time is already way ahead of the game. And, very importantly, households with parents who aren’t welded to their phones. Modeling matters.

[Apache]

Overall, once children start school they are influenced more by their friends than their parents.
Apache

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by issybird

I figure parents control the screen time, too, whether it be tv, internet, computer games or social media. Obviously they have to loosen the reins as the kids get older, but a house that doesn’t have the tv on all the time is already way ahead of the game. And, very importantly, households with parents who aren’t welded to their phones. Modeling matters.

Heh. My parents tried to limit my book time (I had weak eyes and I guess they were afraid for my eyesight). Besides they thought I could do something useful instead of being buried in a book all the time. Like more household chores. Now parents are happy if their children read. How times have changed.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I think they way they teach in English class makes a lot of people turned off to reading. hey pick some really awful books and Shakespeare should never be read in school. Most of the books read are irrelevant to the lives of the students and they aren't allt hat enjoyable anyway.

If I wasn't already into reading for pleasure, school could easily have turned me off from reading. Chaucer and Shakespeare really not good to make kids read.

This is your opinion, it does not hold true for everyone. I truly think it says more about your teacher than about the works. Both of my children enjoy Shakespeare, with A Midsummer Night's Dream being one of my son's favorite books. He was first introduced to it when he was 13 or so, he's 24 now, and he's read it 4 or 5 times now.

Shari