Harry Potter - Popular, but never to be a Classic

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by adamsmitt

Hi there. I am a big fan of Harry Potter and I think lots of people can say that it can be a classic.

I agree; I have no doubt that Harry Potter’s story will become a classic. I realize it’s too early to say for sure, but I’d bet my bottom dollar on it.

I’m a bit hesitant about whether the movies will relegate the books to the bottom shelf though. It seems that most of the kids and young people I know prefer video games and movies over books. They loved the movies but weren’t interested when I’ve offered the books. The books seemed redundant, which is a shame.

[mrscoach]

I always tell students that the books give details left out of the movies. There is WAY too much in the books to put in a 2 hour movie.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

I always tell students that the books give details left out of the movies. There is WAY too much in the books to put in a 2 hour movie.

OTOH the Hobbit Movie has way too much stuff not even hinted at in the book.
A Prince Caspian Movie appeared to be an excerpt from a Peter Jackson film with a screenplay invented by someone that decided to ignore the book.

There are some films as good or better than the books, maybe The Princess Bride, but mostly books are better. There are oddly even some post film novelizations that are better than the film.
Some books are written in a cinematic style and transfer well. Some take a rather poorly written book and make a good film, but IMO, many of the best films are largely screenplays (or even plays) not originally books.
It's a different complementary medium. Also now with a 42" or larger screen being about the price of a basic 1950s radio, you don't actually need the cinema. Pull the curtains. Have an uplighter to the side of the screen. Add a decent hi-fi and don't sit too far away. Have TV at eye level, not on the typical low stands. If using a wall bracket it's best to have one that angles out rather than flat on the wall.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

I always tell students that the books give details left out of the movies. There is WAY too much in the books to put in a 2 hour movie.

IMPO, the book is a much richer experience. For example, there were complexities in both Dumbledoor and Snipe that were totally missed in the movies.

[william z]

Originally Posted by leebase

Yes...this is an opinion piece. But it's written by a fan of the Harry Potter series.

To me, the appellation "Classic" is given to books to form a common foundation of understanding, myth and imagery for society. Classics aren't just the popular books that "were read"...but books that gained enough distinction in being presented as "books you should read" in school.

I just don't think there is anything of merit to the Potter series that "kids will be elevated in their humanity and education by reading this book".

Now, Potter books are a great "gateway book" that has prompted many kids to learn to love reading. And I think it will always have a place as a popularly loved book. But that's the same play you'd put comic books or any book from a popular movie. Gateway books are valuable...but they aren't classics.

Rasin in the Sun? Classic. Hunger Games? Gateway book

I have been a voracious reader ever since I learned to read and am now 81 years old. I read the Harry Potter series and enjoyed the first 3 books a lot, the others not so much. I doubt if they will ever be "classics" as I wouldn't read them again but so what? Any books or stories, even comic books, that get children interested in reading are good in my estimation. In my lifetime I have read most of "classics" and best-sellers and books on every subject under the sun, in my old age I read for entertainment and my favorites are mysteries, thrillers, action and science fiction.

I think schools make a mistake in forcing children to read certain books, they should have a much wider choice because not everybody likes the same reading matter. Their focus should be on getting children to like reading, and giving them books to read that they don't like might just turn them off reading.

[mrscoach]

Originally Posted by Quoth

OTOH the Hobbit Movie has way too much stuff not even hinted at in the book.
A Prince Caspian Movie appeared to be an excerpt from a Peter Jackson film with a screenplay invented by someone that decided to ignore the book.

There are some films as good or better than the books, maybe The Princess Bride, but mostly books are better. There are oddly even some post film novelizations that are better than the film.
Some books are written in a cinematic style and transfer well. Some take a rather poorly written book and make a good film, but IMO, many of the best films are largely screenplays (or even plays) not originally books.
It's a different complementary medium. Also now with a 42" or larger screen being about the price of a basic 1950s radio, you don't actually need the cinema. Pull the curtains. Have an uplighter to the side of the screen. Add a decent hi-fi and don't sit too far away. Have TV at eye level, not on the typical low stands. If using a wall bracket it's best to have one that angles out rather than flat on the wall.

I was speaking specifically of the Harry Potter movies, not books and movies in general.

[crich70]

I don't think that we can really say that the Harry Potter series will never be classics. A book becomes a classic by virtue of still being read long after its author (and the original generation of readers) are long gone. Mark Twain once said, "A classic is something everyone wants to have read and nobody wants to read." While I doubt that Mr. Twain meant it literally I can see some of what he meant. Classics tend to be long in a lot of cases, and take time to read through. Certainly none of the Harry Potter books are short. And I wager some of the books written in the 19th century were thought to be 'classic' worthy and yet are long forgotten while others disparaged as 'popular' fiction at the time have remained in the public eye.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by crich70

And I wager some of the books written in the 19th century were thought to be 'classic' worthy and yet are long forgotten while others disparaged as 'popular' fiction at the time have remained in the public eye.

And vice-versa. Some wildly popular 19th Century fiction is now forgotten. Have you heard of G. M. W. Reynolds? He was more popular than Dickens and Thackeray, described as “the most published man of the 19th century” and “the most popular writer of his time”.

[Logseman]

I was fortunate that I went to a school which taught three languages, and with them three literatures (German, Spanish and English). They managed to make us read two books from Max Frisch, both of them horrific (Andorra and Homo Faber), as well as the much more interesting Die Physiker from Dürrenmatt and Der Vorleser the May-December romance that you may know for the Kate Winslet-led Hollywood film The Reader. In the English subject they didn't faff about, and we were given A Midsummer Night's Dream, Of Mice and Men and 1984, which seems fair.

I don't recall the books we read in Spanish, but I recall they bombarded us with Cervantes, who consistently managed to snatch horrifyingly boring reads from interesting premises, and we didn't read the best Spanish writer (Benito Pérez Galdós) so it was largely a waste. With that said, as much as the taste of the Spanish literature teachers was debatable, one of them said something I found interesting: a book that is a flavor of the year/decade will be used by future writers as a way to give context to the story. A classic, however, is the book whose name is rarely mentioned, but which clearly influenced future writers.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by crich70

I don't think that we can really say that the Harry Potter series will never be classics. A book becomes a classic by virtue of still being read long after its author (and the original generation of readers) are long gone.

I will disagree. Classics do not just become classics after the author is dead.

Star Wars is a classic and the writers are not dead. The Harry Potter series is a classic and Rowling is not dead.

Stairway to Heaven and Hotel California are classic songs and most who worked on them are not dead.

There are many many more examples that could be given.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Logseman

I was fortunate that I went to a school which taught three languages, and with them three literatures (German, Spanish and English). They managed to make us read two books from Max Frisch, both of them horrific (Andorra and Homo Faber), as well as the much more interesting Die Physiker from Dürrenmatt and Der Vorleser the May-December romance that you may know for the Kate Winslet-led Hollywood film The Reader. In the English subject they didn't faff about, and we were given A Midsummer Night's Dream, Of Mice and Men and 1984, which seems fair.

I'm of the mid that Shakespeare is irreverent and should not be forced on kids in school.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I'm of the mid that Shakespeare is irreverent and should not be forced on kids in school.

I agree that Shakespeare is often irreverent but is rarely irrelevant. He tackles big themes and describes a lot of human Psychology. Remember most of his work are plays and are best seen in performance,

I do agree, however that the language can be difficult and is becoming increasingly so.

I would go further with your second point. A child should NOT have any book FORCED on them. They should be given a good mix of books and left to choose their own reading matter.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

I agree that Shakespeare is often irreverent but is rarely irrelevant. He tackles big themes and describes a lot of human Psychology. Remember most of his work are plays and are best seen in performance,

I do agree, however that the language can be difficult and is becoming increasingly so.

I would go further with your second point. A child should NOT have any book FORCED on them. They should be given a good mix of books and left to choose their own reading matter.

Find other books that tackles such themes. Making kids read such outdated/obsolete language has no bearing on anything relevant. Other then Shakespeare, I have never read any book that uses such old English. I can see this being the case for most students and if it wasn't for school, they would never have to read it.

[issybird]

So much for shared culture and reference points! Obviously I’m old school, but I think kids should be reading in school books they wouldn’t necessarily read on their own, for the reasons of shared culture and learning how to approach and appreciate more difficult texts. School is not for fun, nor for giving kids what they want. They can read carp on their own time.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by issybird

They can read carp on their own time.

Fly Fishing by J R Hartley isn't everyone's cup of tea.