Harry Potter - Popular, but never to be a Classic

[Pajamaman]

Shakespeare must be read in the original to be appreciated fully. Some writers can be translated or modernized with no great loss. Not so Shakespeare. I recall reading sections where he has three different metaphors going at once. And we've lost alot of the meaning.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

Shakespeare must be read in the original to be appreciated fully. Some writers can be translated or modernized with no great loss. Not so Shakespeare. I recall reading sections where he has three different metaphors going at once. And we've lost alot of the meaning.

Perhaps, but I'm not going to read him anymore. Or any other classics. I read trashy genre fiction these days and have no hankering for anything heavier.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Perhaps, but I'm not going to read him anymore. Or any other classics. I read trashy genre fiction these days and have no hankering for anything heavier.

I'm enjoying having someone else read Shakespeare for me atm: Patrick Stewart's "A Sonnet a Day" on Twitter has been informative and entertaining

[haertig]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

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...

I remember that in college. I didn't know what English it was at the time, but it was not easy to read by any means. It would have been incomprehensible without the translations (in the margins of the book, IIRC). I don't remember it enlightening me or making me a better or more intelligent person in the slightest. But I did pass the course, which being required for my major, allowed me to get my degree (question: Why does an Electrical Engineer need to read Chaucer?)

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by haertig

I remember that in college. I didn't know what English it was at the time, but it was not easy to read by any means. It would have been incomprehensible without the translations (in the margins of the book, IIRC).

I've never read all of The Canterbury Tales, but in a side-by-side edition I took a look at I remember being struck by how much a low-level vestigial familiarity with German helped with understanding Middle English.

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

Shakespeare must be read in the original to be appreciated fully.

But, how many of us can read Klingon?

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by haertig

I remember that in college. I didn't know what English it was at the time, but it was not easy to read by any means. It would have been incomprehensible without the translations (in the margins of the book, IIRC). I don't remember it enlightening me or making me a better or more intelligent person in the slightest. But I did pass the course, which being required for my major, allowed me to get my degree (question: Why does an Electrical Engineer need to read Chaucer?)

Oh I wouldn't think it'd bring about enlightenment, it's just not something you'd get to in high school and below. If you wanna be truly lost check out an Old English edition of Beowulf, it's utterly incomprehensible to Middle and Modern English, the two of which have more in common with each other than they do with Old English.

I've no idea why they'd make you read Chaucer, but I can tell you my college roommate who was a Computer Science major I don't recall his focus, had to take classes which focused on building compositional skills, because the university had found that if it wasn't required those in the major tended to graduate and struggle to communicate effectively in text.

Note -I- am not making that claim, that's literally what they told the comp. sci majors at the time. Granted they put a bit of polish on it and made it sound pretty.

[pwalker8]

Shakespeare, of course, wrote plays. In general, plays tend to be best enjoyed being performed rather than simply being read. I enjoyed studying Shakespeare when I was in school, but the fact that the performances are still being done and are still quite popular means a lot. Kenneth Branagh's Henry V was exceptional. In a way, reading a script without watching the performance is a bit like reading the sheet music of a song without listening to the song. It can be done, but it's not the best way to experience the work.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Shakespeare, of course, wrote plays. In general, plays tend to be best enjoyed being performed rather than simply being read. I enjoyed studying Shakespeare when I was in school, but the fact that the performances are still being done and are still quite popular means a lot. Kenneth Branagh's Henry V was exceptional. In a way, reading a script without watching the performance is a bit like reading the sheet music of a song without listening to the song. It can be done, but it's not the best way to experience the work.

Exactly! I made a similar comment earlier, putting "read" in bold for emphasis.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by 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?

1. Yes there will always be classics. Will the moldy oldies still be called classics? I hope not as the older they get, the less relevant they become.

2. I don't consider some of the "classics" to be great literature.I think a book doesn't have to be great literature to be a classic. If that was the case, then some of those old classics would ne be able to be called classic.

I would not compare Harry Potter to those old books as they don't compare.Harry Potter is very different. If? Harry Potter already is a classic.Classics don't have to be old books. There are modern classics and instant classics.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

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.

.
Perhaps just a little hyperbole there?

I'm still going to blame school. I've been there, done that and I can easily see how the curriculum can turn kids off to reading. I'm very much against Shakespeare in the classroom. I'm also against books like Chaucer. There were some books I liked when I was in school. But the ones I didn't like I really didn't like. Old English is useless (IMHO) to kids today.

Physics, Medieval history, and Geometry are not going to take something away from the kids. English class may take away reading for enjoyment.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

1. Yes there will always be classics. Will the moldy oldies still be called classics? I hope not as the older they get, the less relevant they become.

Classics are timeless and you can’t be more relevant than that. But if we’re talking in practical terms, just how relevant can a tale of a poor wizardry school (and Hogwarts really is a rotten school) be?

2. I don't consider some of the "classics" to be great literature.I think a book doesn't have to be great literature to be a classic. If that was the case, then some of those old classics would ne be able to be called classic.

Perhaps not great literature, but good, and groundbreaking in some respect. As someone noted above, Sherlock Holmes isn’t great literature.

I would not compare Harry Potter to those old books as they don't compare.Harry Potter is very different. If? Harry Potter already is a classic.Classics don't have to be old books. There are modern classics and instant classics.

Flatly impossible. Now you’ve gone from thinking that books you don’t like are rubbish no matter the general reaction, to thinking you can redefine words at will. And what’s the point? If classic is going to mean what you alone say it means, why do you care about the label? But I suspect you’re only doing it to annoy, because you know it teases. (Lewis Carroll. Classic.)

[JSWolf]

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 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.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by 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

So if Shakespeare is modern English, what type of English do we have now?

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So if Shakespeare is modern English, what type of English do we have now?

Shakespearean English is classified as "Early Modern English". The various Englishes today are variants of "Modern English"