Harry Potter - Popular, but never to be a Classic

[Sirtel]

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.

Kids are as different re their reading tastes as adults. What you like may well put another kid off, and vice versa. You can't put a school program together only by a single student's reading preferences.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

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.

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.

[JSWolf]

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).

When I was in high school, there was one class that was optional that read Tolkien. I forget if they read The Hobbit or it was just TLotR.

But the regular English class botched some of the books we had to read. Forcing kids to read books that are that bad or that hard to read can put them off reading. It's the school's fault for the decline in reading. What happens as a kid can carry over to adulthood and that includes not reading books for pleasure.

[Gandulf]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Kids are as different re their reading tastes as adults. What you like may well put another kid off, and vice versa. You can't put a school program together only by a single student's reading preferences.

Set books are 1 thing general reading for book reports etc another.

I did a book report on a Doctor Who book, teacher told me they are not proper English and I must stop reading them. So I stopped reading ... A good teacher should have let me read them but encourage me to read other book even recommend some.

1 book that has not been mentioned is Lord of the flies, but then again it's not a classic.

[JSWolf]

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.

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

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by Gandulf

1 book that has not been mentioned is Lord of the flies, but then again it's not a classic.

(e.a.)

A Quora discussion on this very question nicely illustrates the challenge of finding an agreed definition for "classic"

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

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?

Harry Potter got kids and adults reading. The stories are good. Classc good vs evil. And obviously, classic don't have to be great literature. So Harry Potter fits the bill.

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.)

It's because the term classic is subjective. When I say a book is rubbish, that's because I think it is. There are books I don't like but can see other liking it. And some of the rubbish doesn't hold up well at all. Not everything does hold up well and that includes some classics of old. Is there a definition that fits in all cases?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

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

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.

[Uncle Robin]

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.

You asked what the English of today is called. I answered. The end.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Harry Potter got kids and adults reading. The stories are good. Classc good vs evil.

Exactly! Just like a lot of moldy oldies. Timeless themes, which makes them relevant in addition to being good literature. But just because a book has a timeless theme doesn’t make it a classic.

It's because the term classic is subjective. I don't think some of the classics are classics and some of what I think are classics you may not. Is there a definition that fits in all cases?

It’s only subjective at the margins. What makes a classic a classic is that time and common assessment make it so. There’s a commonality to the canon. There can be disagreement about “minor classics” but mostly people know what the classics are. No matter how you dislike it, Jane Eyre is a classic. No one ever said you had to love them. I enjoy Victorian novels myself, but at that I bailed on Little Dorrit. I don’t, however, claim that Dickens isn’t one of the greats (although I personally prefer Trollope).

To parse your statement: “I don’t think some of the classics are classics” is illogical. First you acknowledge they are, then you contradict yourself. Really what you’re saying is that you do know what the definition of classics is, you just would like it to be different.

“Some of what I think are classics you may not.” One person does not make a classic. Again, if you’re going to define the word to cover the books you like and exclude the books you don’t like, why do you care about slapping the label classic on them? Just say, “this is what I like to read.” Because who cares? Sirtel has the right take on it.

ETA: I see you’ve edited your post, so I’ll respond to your new last para:

It’s because the term classic is subjective. When I say a book is rubbish, that's because I think it is. There are books I don't like but can see other liking it. And some of the rubbish doesn't hold up well at all. Not everything does hold up well and that includes some classics of old. Is there a definition that fits in all cases?

You’d be better served to drop the word rubbish to describe books you don’t like. Just say you don’t like them. “Rubbish” implies a qualitative assessment and an argumentative if not offensive stance and if you think Shakespeare is rubbish, you have no credibility. I think you’re an outlier. Nothing wrong with that, but you might as well use terms as they’re commonly employed. The lexicon of JSWolf confuses where it doesn’t irritate.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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

Originally Posted by Sirtel

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

In my high school English class we were allowed on at least one occasion to choose which book to read and report on. I think there must have been a list we could select from (it's been many years, don't remember for sure.) I (as a girl) chose Pride and Prejudice which I enjoyed and have reread a few times over the years because I enjoyed Austen's writing style and humor. As I recall the other girls generally made similar choices, such as the Brontes, while the boys chose things like "Lord of the Flies" or maybe some Hemingway.

We also, as a whole class, read Romeo and Juliet. The teacher did show us a film of that one to try to help get us interested. I remember disliking Romeo and Juliet because of the ending, not because of having to deal with the older version of English.

Would I read a Shakespeare play today just for entertainment? Probably not. But I am not sorry I read a couple of them in school.

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 didn't enjoy math classes at all, but I wouldn't say math is "rubbish" or shouldn't be required just because I personally didn't like it.

Originally Posted by barryem

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.

Agreed

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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

Some of my math and science classes definitely took away my enjoyment of my school days....

[JSWolf]

If classic had a definite definition that we can apply or not to books, then we would not be disagreeing on Harry Potter as a classic. The definition of classic as "you know it when you see it" can be a subjective view.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If classic had a definite definition that we can apply or not to books, then we would not be disagreeing on Harry Potter as a classic. The definition of classic as "you know it when you see it" can be a subjective view.

I think you're forgetting the time aspect of this. Classics continue to be widely read and admired long after they were written. It's too soon to know if the Harry Potter books are classics. You can predict that they will be or won't be, but you can't know until much later.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Harry Potter got kids and adults reading. The stories are good. Classc good vs evil. And obviously, classic don't have to be great literature. So Harry Potter fits the bill.

50 Shades of Grey got adults and teens reading again and contains elements of various classic stylings.

Twilight also got kids and adults reading again and is about the classic star crossed lovers theme.

Neither of these series are classic, nor is Harry Potter. They are just examples of classic themes.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

When I was in high school, there was one class that was optional that read Tolkien. I forget if they read The Hobbit or it was just TLotR.

But the regular English class botched some of the books we had to read. Forcing kids to read books that are that bad or that hard to read can put them off reading. It's the school's fault for the decline in reading. What happens as a kid can carry over to adulthood and that includes not reading books for pleasure.

You keep on insisting on that school alone is the cause while ignoring every other factor. I thus blame you for the decline in reading in your schoolmates. It’s as equally illogical as your claim.