Harry Potter - Popular, but never to be a Classic

[pwalker8]

It all depends on your definition of what a classic is. My definition of classic is something that withstands the test of time. Are people still reading it in 20, 30, 50, 100 years. I don't think it has a thing to do with what English lit teachers are pushing. Sherlock Holmes is a classic because it's still being read over 100 years later. Will Harry Potter be a classic? It has a chance. Certainly it's still being read 20 years later, so unlike most books, it has some staying power. But we really aren't going to have a good idea if it's going to be a classic until it's 50 years old. If people are still reading it, then it's likely going to be a classic.

I currently reading Swiss Family Robinson, first published in 1812 and like dates before that. It's still quite an enjoyable read, at least it is for me. It's definitely a classic. On the flip side, there are books that people call classics that few would read if they didn't have to.

[barryem]

I think a book is a classic if it's read for a very long time. I don't think any book can be called a classic after 23 years. I also don't think it's possible to decide in advance what will be a classic unless you have access to a time machine.

As for Shakespeare not being well written, well, I better not comment. Anything I might say about that would me misconstrued as demeaning.

By the way, Shakespeare was written in what linguists consider to be Modern English. Beowulf was written in Old English.

Here's an example of Old English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOfvCN_F5cg

Barry

[MGlitch]

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.

No school is forcing students to read in old English. Few are even forcing Middle English, and that’s generally not until the college level (perhaps AP classes).

You might have read works in early modern English, or works from old or middle English which were translated to modern English. But without a doubt you did not read a book in old English. You, and a great deal of people on the planet would not recognize old English as English. Though Middle English would be recognizable you’d struggle with it, you can find an easy example of what Middle English looks like with a proper edition of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (with Middle English on one page and a modern English translation on the next). Shakespeare wrote in the Elizabethan era, which makes his works Early Modern English.

I mention all this only because you have continuously misrepresented these languages in an attempt to establish what is and isn’t a classic while simultaneously claiming a classic must needs be in a language such as one can easily grasp and ascertain the plot with only an understanding of the most modern form of the language.

This is an opinion I find rather illogical as it would require reimagining the classics with relative haste. And would also very quickly start ignoring those who established the basis of whole genres, and writing styles, Tolkien being an example of the former and Shakespeare of the latter.

The ease at which these works are understood with only minimal knowledge of the language is irrelevant they can always be modernized, as Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Beowulf have. The point is that these works changed the literary world.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Then there are some books that are called classic that aren't such as Rendezvous with Rama. It's the best of the series and that is not saying much as the rest is awful and RwR is rubbish.

The sequels to RwR are not by Clarke. And, yes, they suck. The one immediately after is shockingly bad. Reading that again as an adult forced me to question the mainstream publishing process. So much for gate-keepers and quality control. I would be fascinated to know the back-room process that allowed that sequel to be published. Embarrasing.

But RwR is a great book. Clarke was unusual in that he wrote books about utopias without predictable antagonists. He tended to write about worlds that demonstrated sentience at its best. That's hard to do. RwR is a book that describes the huge and uncanny. And there is not antagonist. That's hard to do. I think he did a good job.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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.

Shakespeare at his best is very entertaining reading. A classic, like any book, should be enjoyable.

I think the Potter books will be classics, in the same way that Tolkien is classic, though not quite as good as Tolkien. Why would the Potter books not be considered classic? They have had a massive influence on culture and are a massive entertaining read.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by shalym

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

I find A Midsummer Night's Dream to be one of Shakespeare's most acessible works. That bit with the donkey head made me burst out laughing. And all the Thisbe play. OMG. So funny. I think that's the sign of a great writer--they can do funny and tragic. Jung said something about that--how life is both funny an serious. A genius writer can encompass that. Strugatsky can do that in one book, but they were two writers.

I don't know why some Shakepeare is easier to understand than others. Macbeth is easy too, and maybe the Tempest. I've yet to get my head around Romeo and Juliet. Hamlet takes some work, but it is worth. There is nothing else like it. But it's so dark...

[issybird]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

No school is forcing students to read in old English. Few are even forcing Middle English, and that’s generally not until the college level (perhaps AP classes).

Except that I don't think Jon was referencing Old English (and the capital O should be used for clarity). He said, specifically, "olde English" which I take as a tongue in cheek reference to English that's not the modern vernacular. I thought his meaning quite clear, even though I don't agree with him. He also specifically mentioned having to read Chaucer, so that part of the lecture seems unnecessary.

[Thasaidon]

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.

Very pertinent point well put.

[Pulpmeister]

I've long held the view that "classics" (not a name that I like, I prefer "greats") are those books which, whether or not they were best sellers, have durability and popularity with the reading public long after the author is dead. They may be badly written, or beautifully written, but to survive for a hundred, or even hundreds of years, after the author is gone is a sure sign that those books have hit a nerve in some way, give some welcome light into their readers' lives.

Which is, I suppose, why I seldom read Literary Prize-Winning books (unless they won that prize many years ago, and are still selling strongly). There is an Australian literary award, and last time I checked most were out of print, or selling in penny numbers for academic studies.

Taking Holmes for example: Conan Doyle was a slapdash writer, and many of the stories were mediocre, but Holmes still grips after all these years, while hardly anyone has heard of his many contemporaries (except of course readers of PD ebooks...)

[Sirtel]

As to Shakespeare, I think the Shakespeare for Slackers series by Aaron Kite would be great for poor students required to read the Bard at school . Unfortunately the series seems not to be available anymore (I bought it as ebooks from Smashwords).

[You know, back in the day, Shakespeare wasn't considered elite. Oh sure, his plays were performed for royalty, but they were actually written for tradesmen, shopkeepers, average Joes, anybody who could pay a penny for a ticket. Mostly he wrote plays for the common man, using the language of the times.

Times have changed.

In Shakespeare for Slackers: Hamlet, not only do you get the original play written by William Shakespeare, but you also get what a few of us think he probably would have written if he were still around today. (And if he sat around watching a lot of television.)

It's Shakespeare translated, retold, vandalized, brutalized, and outright demolished to suit the language of the times.

Why? Because we can.]

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

It's Shakespeare translated, retold, vandalized, brutalized, and outright demolished to suit the language of the times.


Why? Because we can.][/SIZE]

Ben Crystal and his father David have done good work"replebeianizing" Shakespeare with their productions presented in the "original" English, or a very well-researched and documented facsimile thereof. No plummy RADA accents, just English as she was spoke, and the impact is quite surprising.

Shakespeare fits as a classic from the point of view of breadth of appeal, too. A LOT of posts in these threads apparently define "classics" as "books mandated by the US educational system". Shakespeare otoh has been adopted the world over, in many different cultures and languages. Zeffirelli, Kurosawa and Bhardwaj all represent very different literary and cultural traditions, but all three have produced interpretations of Shakespeare's work. That sort of universality suggests a true "classic" for me.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by issybird

He also specifically mentioned having to read Chaucer, so that part of the lecture seems unnecessary.

Most schools prior to college level would not use a Middle English/English edition as they tend to cost more and the need for a linguistic comparison between the two is generally not beneficial before that level of study. As Jon did not specify when he read it, stating only the nebulous term “school”, I could only presume that the use of teacher rather than professor coupled with forcing students to a curriculum during a formative period, and one where the student had seemingly no control over the classes they took would place the reading in high school or below.

I’ll cede the point on olde English vs Old English save that olde English is hardly challenging with the same understanding of English as it would take to read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies which Jon seems in favor of inflicting on students, and a competent teacher. Though one can argue it wouldn’t matter what was read without a competent teacher to act as a guide, at least for some percentage of the students.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

Ben Crystal and his father David have done good work"replebeianizing" Shakespeare with their productions presented in the "original" English, or a very well-researched and documented facsimile thereof. No plummy RADA accents, just English as she was spoke, and the impact is quite surprising.

Shakespeare fits as a classic from the point of view of breadth of appeal, too. A LOT of posts in these threads apparently define "classics" as "books mandated by the US educational system". Shakespeare otoh has been adopted the world over, in many different cultures and languages. Zeffirelli, Kurosawa and Bhardwaj all represent very different literary and cultural traditions, but all three have produced interpretations of Shakespeare's work. That sort of universality suggest a true "classic" for me.

Of course. If old Bill isn't a classic, then no one is.

I read most of Shakespeare's work (translated into Estonian) during my "classics" period (early twenties). Some of it was pretty interesting. (To those of you who complain about the olde English, the Estonian translation has also been criticized as "too inaccessible".)

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

In Shakespeare for Slackers: Hamlet, not only do you get the original play written by William Shakespeare, but you also get what a few of us think he probably would have written if he were still around today. (And if he sat around watching a lot of television.)

It's Shakespeare translated, retold, vandalized, brutalized, and outright demolished to suit the language of the times.

Sounds like the no fear Shakespeare series which I know was popular with students who struggled with the language some years ago. I’m not sure if it’s still published.

[Sirtel]

And then there is "William Shakespeare's Star Wars" by Ian Doescher. Will it be a classic? Somehow I doubt it. But it's still an entertaining read.