Harry Potter - Popular, but never to be a Classic

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

There are many kids that have difficulty reading Early Modern English. Will they every have to read such out of school? No. So why not teach books that they can read? We don't really need Shakespeare.

There are many students who struggle with math, unless you go into a math related field you really only ever need basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division (and honestly even some of that is questionable as to the need). There are students who struggle with history, recalling dates of events long past will not impact their day to day lives. There are students who struggle with chemistry and physics neither of which are utilized in day to day life.

All the above are taught to make you a more well rounded person including reading classics even if you struggle with them. School isn’t meant to be a cakewalk.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by davidfor

But, how many of us can read Klingon?

Originally Posted by JSWolf

“You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon.” --Klingon chancellor Gorkon

Lol. Forgot that line.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

There are many kids that have difficulty reading Early Modern English. Will they every have to read such out of school? No. So why not teach books that they can read? We don't really need Shakespeare.

By that definition, may of them should just learn leetspeak and internet acronyms and tweeted lines of less than 200 words.

8y 7h47 d3f1n1710n, m4y 0f 7h3m 5h0u1d ju57 1342n 13375p34k 4nd 1n732n37 4c20nym5 4nd 7w3373d 11n35 0f 1355 7h4n 200 w02d5.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

RwR (IMHO) is dry and dull. Nothing happens that's actually interesting enough. I think this is really a disappointment. Clarke can write much better books.

Get you gone, you dwarf,
You minimus of hindering knotgrass made,
You bead, you acorn!

[leebase]

I tried to define the term...but...you know...people.

Classic cars are not how I was using Classic books. Harry Potter would certainly be a Classic car.

Think of "Classical Education" as what folks in the 1700's would be been given. There was a set of works, nearly all ancient Greek, that an educated man would be expected to know. And would benefit society as a common bond of knowledge, myth and culture.

I'm not surprised at the "classic books are boring" arguments. Irrelevant to what I was talking about. But yes, there's a great chasm between "getting an education" and "being entertained". Classic books are for the former, not the latter. "Teaching kids to love reading" should use plenty of books outside classic literature, that are fun to read.

What I'm surprised hasn't happened is the objection to "defining what a culture should know". Should we still read Mark Twain...or should we substitute <insert current progressive book here> because...you know...if we keep reading "classic books" we keep perpetuation <insert pejorative description of western or American culture>.

[Pajamaman]

Like Midsummer Nights Dream, and Tolkien, Harry Potter has developed the concept of magic. Its ideas have permeated popular culture and will have a lasting impact. Also, like the other two, it's pretty entertaining to read, which helped its ideas take hold. Rowling has ideas sprouting out of her head.

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

Harry Potter has developed the concept of magic.

Meh. I didn't see anything new or original. Even worse, she made their magic wands be nothing more than guns that shot out some bolt of energy. The last book ended with what was essentially a big gun fight.

[hobnail]

One of the things I didn't understand about the books until several years after I'd finished them is that the model she was using was very similar to the standard mystery series where you can pick up any book in the series and enjoy it without having read the prior ones. Of course with both you'd have enjoyed it more if you had read them in order but it's not like Lord of the Rings where reading them in order is crucial.

I remember when I finished the second Harry Potter book I was scratching my head thinking that the Voldemort part of the story hadn't been advanced and developed; he was a problem that popped in and had to be solved and when that was done, move on. Each book was a collection of various standalone threads somewhat interwoven; the Quidditch match, the visiting professor, Voldemort, etc.

The other thing that drove me crazy, but again it's also done in mystery series, is how she'd completely discard/ignore a character, idea, etc. in subsequent books.

And interestingly, mysteries are what she wrote after the Harry Potter series (under the name Roger Galbraith or something like that).

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I agree it's not true for everyone. ut given the decline in reading, I think it's more true then you think. I will not read Shakespeare. I hated it in school. It put me off. And other books could have put me off. So really, schools need to get books that have less of a change of putting kids off.

This is true. I've met and dated a few non-readers. When asked why they don't try giving reading more chances, they all told me they were too burned out by the boring books schools had them read and have no interest in trying out reading now that they're "free" and not forced to chore through the school-picked tales.

Some may use it as an excuse, so it may be true.

Really it's ultimately up to the personality of the person - while I firmly believe there is a book everyone will enjoy, even if they think they hate reading -- some people just don't enjoy reading in general and don't want to pursue it.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by leebase

I'm not surprised at the "classic books are boring" arguments. Irrelevant to what I was talking about. But yes, there's a great chasm between "getting an education" and "being entertained". Classic books are for the former, not the latter. "Teaching kids to love reading" should use plenty of books outside classic literature, that are fun to read.
.

I've enjoyed classics as an adult, that I didn't enjoy as a teenager. I think some books people are more ready for when they're older.

I like the idea of having a pool of classics to give the kids or teens a choice to pick from for reports and study. They can then find the one that suits them and speaks to them personally, giving them a better chance of positive impact.

As for the topic of the thread, it's too soon to tell if Harry Potter will be considered a classic one day or not. Likely not, but you never know --- some books I find serious duds are now considered classics. It's difficult to tell.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by hobnail

I remember when I finished the second Harry Potter book I was scratching my head thinking that the Voldemort part of the story hadn't been advanced and developed; he was a problem that popped in and had to be solved and when that was done, move on. Each book was a collection of various standalone threads somewhat interwoven; the Quidditch match, the visiting professor, Voldemort, etc.

This happens in most Urban Fantasy series I read and I always liked that - having one side-plot wrapped up and solved in each book, but having the larger plot giving out teasing danglers until finally wrapping up and coming to a conclusion.

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

This happens in most Urban Fantasy series I read and I always liked that - having one side-plot wrapped up and solved in each book, but having the larger plot giving out teasing danglers until finally wrapping up and coming to a conclusion.

I think that why it bothered me in the Harry Potter books is that in the first book she made a big effort to present the Voldemort part as a big overarching plot element for the series. At least that's how it came across to me. I've also read plenty of fantasy series where things were wrapped up at the end of a book and I didn't feel cheated when I read subsequent books.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by hobnail

I think that why it bothered me in the Harry Potter books is that in the first book she made a big effort to present the Voldemort part as a big overarching plot element for the series. At least that's how it came across to me. I've also read plenty of fantasy series where things were wrapped up at the end of a book and I didn't feel cheated when I read subsequent books.

I didn't enjoy her first Harry Potter much either. I waited awhile in between that and the rest of the books - when I started book 2, the stories took off for me and I read them back to back. The first, though, was awkward iMO

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

I didn't enjoy her first Harry Potter much either. I waited awhile in between that and the rest of the books - when I started book 2, the stories took off for me and I read them back to back. The first, though, was awkward iMO

I never read the second or the rest of them. Just not my cuppa (I love fantasy, but Harry Potter seemed... dunno... too childish or something. The whole bit with Harry's childhood and all felt like it was written for a ten years old. Perhaps it was. But it was really offputting for the adult me.)

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

I've enjoyed classics as an adult, that I didn't enjoy as a teenager. I think some books people are more ready for when they're older.

Not me. When I didn't like something as a child or as a teenager, I never did as an adult either. I guess some people's tastes and preferences change when they get older, but others' don't. I read Les Miserables for the first time when I was 11 or 12 and liked it; the same with The City and the Stars and Jane Eyre; but I didn't like Hemingway then and I didn't like him later either. YMMV, of course.