We could do both. Make him read it while his testes are being crushed? 
Maeg! WTF is up, man? Good to see you.
I have never read the Cooper stuff. But given your assessment, I’ll probably give it a miss until the anderling is old enough.
Still in fantasy mode, there are several standalones which easily rival Jo’s writing. King’s The eyes of the Dragon is some of his better writing IMESHO.
Lowry’s the Giver is borderline science fantasy, and is mindblowingly brilliant.
JRRT’s Roverandom is excellent.
Clive Barker has two sound kidlit offerings, Abarat and The Thief of Time.
And of course, there’s Pterry’s Wee Free Men, A Hat Full of Sky, and Maurice. All hail Pterry.
eleanorigby, you have a point in regards to my use of the term “children’s literature” as if all elements of this category could be similarly dismissed, which wasn’t my intention. However, I would not move Harry Potter from the category that includes Scooby Doo. Okay, actually, if we are including Scrappy Doo as well, then I will agree that Harry Pooter is somewhat better than the ones with Scrappy, and/or the ones that excluded Fred and Velma.
Of course this is all simply a matter of opinion, but I do find attempts to cast Harry Potter as particularly well written fairly amusing. I enjoy reading the books with my son, and I am interested in hearing what happens next, but particularly good writing it isn’t. You are correct that it hangs together, in the sense that one event links up well with another (I would debate whether the characters do as well). Plausible? Don’t know about that one.
I really don’t mean to get into a big dissection of the problems with the books. I owe them something for the opportunity to share in a very enjoyable activity with my son. But Joel Stein is right to the degree that he aims to call into question the elevation of these books into the realm of meaningful literature.
Well, I’ve not read Harry Potter, but he’d probably call me a loser for my childish reaction when I saw Pop Rocks for the first time since I was about 12 (almost 15 years) at the local Rite Aid here in Morgantown. Always one of my favorite candies (hey, who DIDN’T love that sensation) and it was just such a blast I think I bought at least 3 packages…hell, I even bought a Coke to go along with it
Of course, my friend from Nigeria thought my giddiness was out there, but then he tried some and seems like he’s a fan now too.
So, to the prick who thinks rediscovering childhood makes you a loser, I say quite simply fuck you…I’m proud to rediscover childhood from time and if Harry Potter does that for others, then I hope they enjoy it!!
Almost too well, another sign of youth-oriented lit.
If wanting to relive my childhood joys of playing on the Sit’n’Spin are wrong, I don’t want to be right.
Thanks, dude. Life is good. Busy but good. Got a real job, got married, etc. Always glad to see that I am missed.
I think I overstated my case about Cooper. I really think they are good books, and they certainly galvanized my interest in western European non-classical mythology when I was a kid. The way Cooper uses traditional Welsh and Arthurian mythology to weave her narrative is excellent. When I was young, I found the premise of a group of people who are born to fight a cosmological battle in the midst of mundane reality to be very compelling. This is probably the same concept that people find so appealling about Harry Potter, Highlander, etc.
I visited Wales last year and bought a new copy to take along with me. I thought it might free the ol’ inner child a bit. On a reread, the mythological tapestry struck me less than the Cooper’s concept of “the elect”, those who are chosen to fight this battle. I am very fond of Susan Cooper, but she certainly lacks the theological sophistication of CS Lewis.
Cooper’s not for five year olds, but a bright kid around 10 with a strong interest in myth should have no problem with it. Sure, I wasn’t the sharpest pencil in the box, but the Calvinism went straight over my head.
If your kid can handle pterry, Cooper should be no problem.
“What’s the point of being grown up if you can’t be childish occasionally?”
(And Doctor Who was 749 when he said that, so he must know what he’s talking about.)
First off, who the heck is Joel Stein, and why should I care about what he thinks I should read and enjoy?
Second, the point of fiction is to entertain, and if anybody finds a book entertaining, it’s done its job. The role of fiction is not to be taught in English classes.
Third, he sounds like any number of people who poo-poo science fiction and fantasy as not being valid fiction genres because they don’t get it. Poor souls.
Ask, and ye shall receive:
Again!
Well, we know which villagers that queer Tinky Winky’s gonna be rapin’.
I think I just peed on myself a little.
Eve that is marvellous. Best fanfiction I’ve ever read
Okay, so let’s see, the question is (aside from is Joel Stein an idiot, which seems to have been settled), “Is Harry Potter literature?”
This wades into the dangerous area of “What is literature?” The usual popular definition (“Writing that stands the test of time”) is fraught with problems for an English, and useless for a series that’s still new.
Some other tests used, when discussing the concept of “literature”:
Canonicity
Will Harry Potter be taught in the canon of literature? Will Professors teach it in universities?
The answer is, they already do. Reading University this year hosted the first ever worldwide conference for university professors studying Harry Potter. However, it’s previously been discussed at conferences – in 2003, the Popular Culture and American Culture Associations held a joint conference where the majority of discussion was on the series.
Rewards a Close Reading
Does it have thematic depth? Can one apply literary critical theory to it and have enough material to work with?
This is an extremely subjective category, but my answer would be “Yes.” I can examine it narratologically, steep it in Russian formalism, postmodernize it, deconstruct it, drive it through the caverns of New Criticism, and subject it to my own favourite approach, that of Humanist Thematicism.
I could easily squeeze out enough for a 25-page paper without ever once feeling I was short of material or stretching material that didn’t fit to suit my purposes. It’s all there, and of sufficient depth and intelligence and complexity as to suit an in-depth examination without breaking under the strain. That’s more than I can say for most work I study.
Intertextuality
For some professors, what matters most about a work is how it “speaks to” other works. these professors are most interested in how the work alludes to other works, and how other, later works in turn refer to it.
Harry Potter references other works by the dozens – frequently subtlely. the most commonly recognized are the many Classical allusions – Sampiro mentioned “Fluffy,” but my favourite is the moment that Hermes the owl lands on Ron’s picture of Io, after avoiding Argus Filch, in Order of the Phoenix (those who known the Greek story of Argus Panoptes will get this subtle joke).
But I’ve caught references to dozens of works Classical, Medieval, and 19th-Century: Mrs. Norris (from Jane Austen), Henry Cornelius Agrippa’s Of Geomancy (the source of the names Albus and Rubeus, and the passwords Caput Draconis and Fortuna Major), numerous Arthurian references surrounding the Weasleys (including a few that could only have come from rather obscure sources like Geoffrey of Monmouth or Robert Wace), the foundation stories of Rome (everyone knows about Remus, but how many people know that Quirrell’s first name, Quirinus, is a name for a deified Romulus?).
Rowling has even admitted that one scene from Goblet of Fire is modelled on a scene on the Illiad. From Entertainment Weekly, Sept. 7, 2000:
[spoiler]EW: Saving Cedric’s body reminded me of the Hector Patroclus Achilles triangle in the Iliad.
JKR: That’s where it came from. That really, really, REALLY moved me when I read that when I was 19. The idea of the desecration of a body, a very ancient idea… I was thinking of that when Harry saved Cedric’s body.[/spoiler]
As for other books that reference Harry Potter, I know that’s already happening. The most recent Stephen King Dark Tower book, I hear, includes a references to a box of Golden Snitches 
Every intertextual reference will further weave Harry Potter into the web of intertextuality, and make it more and more likely that critics studying this period will read it.
Cultural Studies
These critics tend to study popular literature, and understand it through the mould of culture. What makes a kind of book popular in one era, and nothing in another? Why do the genres have certain rules, and how do those rules reflect on the culture? What are the cultural beliefs and politics encoded in the text?
This is a growing field. There are professors who study Danielle Steele to try and figure out why Danielle Steele is popular, and why Danielle Steele won’t be popular if you translate it and drop it in certain other cultures. For these people, books are interesting as a reflection of culture.
There’s plenty in Harry Potter to work with in this. Knowing a bit about contemporary politics in Britain is helpful to understand, say, the Wizengamot scenes (Wizengamot itself being another historical allusion, to the Witenagemot).
Fun
Most professors will find a way to sneak their favourite book on to a course syllabus, at least once every few years.
Now, of course, these motives aren’t exclusive. So the professors looking at deeper readings, cultural studies, intertextuality, and fun will be likely to teach it, contributing to its canonicity.
So there you have it. I hope I’ve demonstrated, once and for all, that the world of Potter fans is not a small, closed, empty one. Now, the world of English literary critics, on the other hand, may be
– Hamish, halfway to a Master’s Degree in English Literature at Concordia University
Well, Hamish, that’s…interesting. Awesome could also be used. But you know, sometimes a red wheelbarrow is just a red wheelbarrow.
(And I know who to come to for any future English lit. references.)
That was an excellent exposition Hamish but I, for the sake of argument, would like a clarification on what actually constitutes Literature (notice the big “L”).
There is no doubt in my mind that the Harry Potter series is literature. I do have a problem, if this is what you are suggesting, with the aforementioned series being part of the Western Canon of Literature. Now what this canon is composed of is probably highly subjective but I’m sure that the works that would be part of it have to meet a particular criteria before being included. Firstly, as is stated in the WIKIPEDIA definition, Literature must be a “work of exceptional intellectual caliber.”
You subjected Harry Potter to several tests: My question is “what wouldn’t qualify?” I mean, I’m sure I could bend any work to your set of criteria. I could take a hacked-out romance novel and subject it to your test and have it pass.
I agree with there being a certain degree of subjectivity involved with any distinction but I’m not so sure that Harry Potter is high art. Rowling is not Shakespeare or Joyce or any of the other titans of our language. If we included her we could include Tolkien, which to my mind isn’t that bad a proposition.
P.S. since when was fun part of the great works of literature? Is Finnegan’s Wake a fun read? Just a little joke.
Ah, and now you come to one of the biggest debates in English lit these days – the canon debate. It’s English Lit’s biggest knock-down, drag-out battle royale to the death.
Canon changes frequently. And since more and more “genre” stuff is being added, we could get that hacked-out romance novel there easily. But it wouldn’t get called “hacked-out.” It would be called “typical of the genre.”
Granted, most of the stuff on the list is still things considered “original,” but try coming up with a non-subjective test for originality, and you hit a snag. I, frankly, just give up and embrace subjectivity, but I’m a bit of an oddball in that respect, and it gets me strange looks
A hacked-out Romance novel isn’t as likely to make my list – it is less likely than its more startingly contemporaries to be referenced in other works, to have “thematic depth,” and there is likely nothing to recommend it above the other hacked-our romances for cultural studies – so it is less likely to carve out a place in the canon. However, it could happen.
And canons change rapidly. Oscar Wilde was rarely taught for nearly 70 years after his trial. John Donne has appeared and disappeared so frequently, it could make your head spin. Pope was taken out once, but Byron argued tirelessly to bring him back. Now there’s an effort to bring more women into the canon, leading to the return of people like Aphra Behn, and Queen Elizabeth I.
All this is just to say that really, anything can become canon. I did the last essay of my undergrad on Anne Rice’s Interview with a Vampire
And many professors agree with you already. Of course, Tolkien already has a presence as an English Lit critic, editor, and translator. One of my textbooks this year was edited by him. So it probably wouldn’t be too hard to argue for his fiction
I joke that Finnegan’s Wake is the Emperor-has-no-clothes of English Lit. It’s awful, IMHO, and everyone is so afraid of being accused of not understanding it that they claim it’s the best book ever written.
And no professor – unless you were close to them – would admit the “fun” category exists. But everyone has their favourites that they try to sneak on to a syllabus on the flimsiest excuse 
They may teach it, but it’s not “canon.”
And people wonder why the humanities have a bad reputation these days.
FYI: Critics of the future won’t study this period–at least not with appreciation. Like 19th-century US drama, it’s what’s called a “wasteland.” An overpopulated wasteland, to boot.
My opinon of the linked article is that Joel Stein is an ass. It’s fine to analyze HP and point out that its typical pop-culture crap (which it is), but he says the books are OK (which they aren’t) but goes on to make fun of people who aren’t acting their age by reading them.
The attack doesn’t make sense. Adults read children’s literature for various reasons. Some write it themselves and want to see what’s going on, others read it analytically as a genre, and some read it because that’s really their level of reading and thought.
I doubt that most adult books are in essence much more “adult” than HP. Take a look at any Michael Crighton book.
Harry Potter is indeed overhyped crap–but so what?
Thanks, andros and Maeglin. I’ve read *Narnia * and Harperhall, but not the others. I liked both, but something about Harry Potter has given me more pleasure than either. I’ll see if I can’t lay my hands on some of the other titles you’ve suggested.