And now let the sneering begin

[pegkerr]

I ran across a couple of articles today, here and here, which dismiss Rowling's books with sneering condescension. Some representative samples:

When it comes to gripping, unchallenging brain candy, the main difference with the boy wizard is that you can read about him in public, smug in the knowledge that you are part of an accepted cultural trend. In today's infantile culture, it's okay to aspire to be childlike.

The latest instalment of Potter-mania, however, has taken our cultural infantilism to a new low.

and this:

In attempting to account for Harry Potter's success, debate has raged over the content of the books. Some have hailed them as new classics, with their roots deep in the rich traditions of children's literature, and others condemned them as superficial and derivative. In my view they are reasonably enjoyable to read, pacy and humorous, with a few surprises; but the characters, especially the evil ones, tend to be caricatured and superficial, and the plots, despite a few twists and turns, are fairly predictable.

But whatever the quality of the literature, this certainly does not account for the appeal of the Potter books. Ultimately, they are pure escapism - and that's what has worked for adults. . . .the main characters in the Potter books are children, and the adults are mostly stupid or evil. In identifying with these child protagonists, you could see adults' enthusiasm for the Harry Potter books as reflecting a rejection of the grown-up world, where things are complicated and don't all turn out right in the end, where adults do bad things and get away with it, and where nothing seems certain.

It is not only in fiction that more and more adults seem to want to escape from this reality, rather than get to grips with it.

There's more of the same at the links I provided above, if you can stomach it.

Since I've seen this attitude before, I've been thinking about this all day. Look, if you haven't figured it out, (and if you're on my friends' list, you probably have) I really do like JK Rowling's books. Usually, I can say that without blushing, but occasionally, I find it difficult to admit, because I do run across the attitude found in these articles, and in some of the offhand (and occasionally not so offhand) remarks I've heard when discussing the books with other people. It can be painful to listen to challenges to your judgment and taste, which, when boiled down, resemble statements like these:

These books may be popular but they are not well-written. If you like them, you have unsophisticated, nay, "infantile" taste.
These books may be popular, but then there are other fantasy novels (and fantasy novelists) who are better and more literary and who deserve all this attention more.
These books are facile and their examination of theme is simplistic. If you like them and intrigued by the themes they explore, well, that means you're a really shallow person who isn't capable of subtle analysis, aren't you?
These books are about children and therefore are a waste of adults' time, who after all, More Important things to think about.

As a fantasy author who has been on a number of different panels at different conventions, I've heard it all. Some of it is clearly jealousy from other professionals in the field who clearly are mad enough to spit nails about the fact that JKR is getting all this lovely money and attention and they, more worthy, are not. I don't mean to imply that the ONLY reason that a fantasy writer wouldn't like Rowling might be because he or she is jealous! Although I have seen jealousy, it would be ridiculous to say that it's the ONLY reason a fantasy writer might dislike the books. As for readers in general, I understand that there are plenty of people who have perfectly legitimate reasons for disliking Rowling's work because, well, it really doesn't suit their taste, books set in English boarding schools (even magical ones) don't interest them, they don't like her style, etc. Rowling's books just might not work for some people.

What interests (and irritates me) is the really intense condescension in the nature of some of the criticism. Sometimes the condescension is so thick that I just smile and keep my mouth shut, knowing that it would be hopeless to even say anything.

It bothers me. Sometimes it infuriates me. When I speak up to defend the books, I'll sometimes catch the arched eyebrows and the superior little smiles, quickly hidden, and I think to myself, why is it so necessary for you to think you are superior to me because I like these books and you don't? Why do you assume that my enjoyment of Rowling's books is "infantile" and you, since you hate them, are not? Why does Bloom assume it is Rowling's books that will be put in the dustbins of history, since he dislikes them (although he admits he didn't even finish the first and hasn't read the rest) and not the ones that he likes?

I pulled out both Emma Bull's "Why I Write Fantasy" and Joanna Russ's How to Suppress Women's Writing as I've been thinking about the mean-spirited sneering tones of these two articles. They explain a lot. Fantasy, Bull says, is dismissed as being of the past, the concern of children only, and therefore not important. But, as she says, fantasy was originally the literature of sophisticates, kings and queens--and if you make the mistake of arguing that it was the literature of the "childhood" of the human race, then you are seriously underestimating your ancestors. Fantasy, Bull argues, is really subversive--it allows the writer to draw some pointed conclusions about what's really going on in our own world (think about Professor Umbridge and what Rowling is saying about education, cowardice, the nature of bureaucratic evil. "Infantile?" Hardly).

Russ talks about how women's writing is marginalized, and I see her observations operating here in these articles: She wrote it, but it isn't high art, literary, sophisticated. She wrote it, but she doesn't deserve the fame. She wrote it but it's too popular, and therefore not worthy of the attention of people with really superior taste. She wrote it, but it's about silly little childish things (like friendship, courage, self-sacrifice and death). She wrote it, but it's really just escapism (friendship, courage, self-sacrifice and death??? Escapism???)

Comments?

Peg

Comments

power of words

[shusu.livejournal.com]

One reason why I have been waiting so eagerly for this book is because I was well aware that JKR wrote this during the post September 11th period.

IMO, she delivered.

An entire generation of children are now reading it. They may not grasp it on the first go, but already I see people in that age group relating to it.

Enough said.

[anomay.livejournal.com]

I have observed in the Western Literary World that generally what's popular isn't considered to be "high-classed." If you have mass market appeal and your work sells like hotcake, somehow that material success has undermined your talent and ability as a writer. Literature isn't supposed to be understood by the general public ...

I say this is all bullshit.

I believe true literature can be and should be understood by everyone. They should be enjoyable, yet explore more serious theme in life.

Snobbish literature critics are the ones who are in a fantasy world.

totally!

[metabutch.livejournal.com]

I haven't read any of the books, but the review snippets just look like some kind of sour-grapes or "if it sells, it isn't good" nonesense. Lots of people enjoy them, so they probably aren't complete drivel. And even if they are, they're likable drivel.

At any rate, I may read them eventually, but my eyes are not so good at reading, alas. Hopefully this next new pair of glasses will help that. Though the last 20 haven't... ;)

[sundancekid.livejournal.com]

Not everyone's going to like them - some people don't have the suspension of disbelief for fantasy, some people won't like them 'cause their "kid's books," some people won't like them because if they're popular, they must be stupid.

Their loss.

Jealousy, yes. And very possibly misogyny. JKR has said before, I think, that she chose to write under J.K. Rowling instead of Joanne Rowling because she didn't want people to know she was a woman.

Sad, really.

Allie

I believe

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

what she said during interviews was that it was her editor's wish that she use her initials to disguise the fact she was a woman, not Rowling's idea.

But yes, telling isn't it?

Sneers a lot

[(Anonymous)]

I believe, generally with every fiber of my being that these books by JK are indeed classic pieces of literature. Sure, the characters are children, but are these not children merging into adults? Coming into their own in these books, and challenging adults around them to form their own opinions about society in general and although they are children to start, by the end, I suspect they won't be anything resembling children. They won't have that innocence and readers will understand and realize this.
JK's mastery of the human mind and the society it created is absolutely splendid. Her perceptions about reality, i.e. the education system, the government etc, are spot on in most cases and most fiction authors are too upset, or worried about these things to actually pin these areas down. JK doesn't seem to steer away form soft spots and trudges through them head on. She spits in the face at conventionalism and is a master at creating things out of thin air.
As for the infantile taste and the poorly written comments, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who hasn't read these books, which most who despise them haven't, are the ones with infantile taste becuase, they are indeed being childish, more so than the characters in the book. Also, the writing style, yes it is simplistic, but for the most part the simplicity suits it well. You can't have something very complicated in a genre like this becuase it would be too easy to stray away from the point.
You can tell that I adore these books entirely and I've written much to much. Thanks
Caleb DeRossi

[aurianrose.livejournal.com]

I'm with you. I *hate* having to defend my love for these books. I have no patience for people that attack it without reading it. Frankly, it seems that these so-called critics just attack Rowling because they want to stand out and be seen as doing something "different."

The fact is that Harry Potter draws from an amazingly rich literary history. Kipling and LeGuin have both been mentioned in this capacity.

On top of this, I know of at least two books that deal with the themes of Harry Potter from a critical, educated perspective: The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter and Harry Potter's World: Multidisciplinary Critical Perspectives. Honesly, I don't see how a series about "silly little childish things" could produce articles entitled: "In Medias Res: Harry Potter as Hero-in-Progress."

I'm behind you a hundred percent on what you're saying. We just need to get the word out!

[magentamn.livejournal.com]

Just to let you know (if you live in Minneapolis) that the Minneapolis Public Library has "The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter" on order as of a couple of days ago, and I will suggest we buy "Harry Potter's World". If we don't it will probably be because of budget problems.

We bought 80 copies of the latest HP - the most copies of ANY title we have every bought at once. There were still over 400 holds as of this morning. It's getting kids to read. Even if it weren't as good as it is, that's important. And I think it *is* good. In many ways, the Harry Potter books are the Oz books of the turn of the 21st century.

[kerri]

Ugh.

Why, why, why do people even try to put down the adults who love Harry Potter by saying that it is a series for children, that the adults are just reverting to their childhood?? JKR herself has said over and over that HP is not merely a book for children, it is meant to be much more than that.

It seems as though these critics are far too eager to discredit the books ability to touch adults and make them want to read. Have they not realized that this is the first series in awhile to combine a plot that children can read and love with deeper meanings and ideas that adults can see?

I wonder how closely these critics examine the books, because they seem to be totally ignoring all the deeper meanings that *are* there - the reflection of our world that we see within the magical world.

It does seem more and more, lately, that anyone who makes something of themselves is someone to be ridiculed, to be thought of as someone who "got lucky" through good marketing and an idea that appeals to our "need to get back to basics" or whatever the critics want to put it down to. History shows that it's the ones who are criticised the most who usually have the most impact, and I think that OoTP shows us what JK Rowling is capable of.

Their loss, as far as I can say - to me they fall into the category of those people who hate something just because other people love it.

[corinnethewise.livejournal.com]

It makes me so mad when people say things like those articles said. I honestly don't think those people have read the Harry Potter books. No redemption? What about Snape, Petunia, Sirius, James? No grey areas? What about breaking the law vs. what is good and needs to be done. What about Snape being good but still being a git? What about MWPP being bullies but Harry still wants to love them even though they were what he hates in school? Simply good vs. evil? Sirius says in book five "The world isn't split up into Good people and Death Eaters." Not real social commentary? What about Umbridge saying that "This knowledge will allow you to pass your exam, and that is, after all, what school is all about." That's a very blatent social commentary if I ever saw one. ::grin:: Of course, I'm not afraid to tell anyone who dares call my beloved books infinile exactly why they're wrong. And I can back up my statements with quotes and well reasoned arguements. Usually all they know is that they're "children's" books. I refuse to read this to my little sister, I think it will scare her. She's nine and has nightmares, she does't need the image of the "I must not tell Lies" quill while she sleeps. This was not a children's book. The only reason for it to be called a children's book was because the main characters were children. Well, now they're 15, it should be considered a YA book, at least. Okay, enough ranting for now, but people who judge without looking at the other side bother me.

[siriologist.livejournal.com]

These books may be popular but they are not well-written. If you like them, you have unsophisticated, nay, "infantile" taste.

This is precisely the attitude I get from my sister. The one with the MA in English Literature. She is so condesending and snooty about it. So yes, I understand this position up close and personal, and I hate it.

Carole

*Snickers*

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

The next time she gives you that attitude, tell her that your good friend Peg Kerr has an MA in English literature. And she likes 'em.

[megancrewe.livejournal.com]

I wrote a rather long entry about HP fandom in my LJ yesterday, so I'll try to leave out anything that would be repeating myself.

It really pisses me off that some adults look down on the reading of children's or YA book. The sort of snotty, "grow up already!" mentality. The suggestion that it's okay for kids to "escape" into fantasy, but not for adults to do the same thing. The assumption that fantasy can't have enough realism (literally or metaphorically) to really mean things or enrich anyone's experience (whereas Harlequin romances and serial crime novels can?). Clearly, people are getting things out of the HP books. Clearly it hasn't reduced them into drooling, zombie-eyed psychotics who only care about getting their next hit of "escapism". If they read a James Joyce novel after they finish OotP, does that make them decent human beings again? Gah!

I think the adults in our society would be a lot healthier if they felt it was okay to indulge in their childhood fantasies every now and then. It's that lovely thing called "balance". Too much gritty realism and you end up depressed and world-weary and hopeless.

The other thing that pisses me off is when people write about things they know nothing about. I only skimmed the articles (because they were making me so mad :P) but the one author at least keep going on about how the books are so black and white with very little suggestion of gray areas or redemption. Um, *coughs*Snape*coughs*? The very first book demonstrates that you can't assume the creepy nasty guy is the evil one. ;) And from the fan reviews I've read, OotP in particular is making many people reevaluate the characterizations of major characters. Unfortunately, only people who enjoy the books enough to have read them will realize how ignorant the author really is--those who want to believe her will have no evidence to disprove what she's saying.

I don't think the HP books are the best things ever written. I avoided them for the first couple years after I heard about them because the hype made me skeptical. But I'm not afraid to admit that I enjoyed the first three books (and that my not-having-read-the-others is more based on wanting to maintain the parts of the fantasy I liked than my thinking them not worth my time), and that I admire JKR for creating a universe that so many people love so much.

We all start as kids, and you can't just chuck that out without losing something that's you.

[cliz.livejournal.com]

It is not only in fiction that more and more adults seem to want to escape from this reality, rather than get to grips with it.

Bah. I feel sorry for the person who wrote this, for they obviously have lost the ability to take joy in the imagination. I would like to see the rule that states that I must be unable to come to grips with reality, since I enjoy escaping into JKR's world.

Fantasy books are by nature an escape. It could be argued that all fiction is an escape, perhaps non-fiction as well. The million or so people who bought Hillary Clinton's memoirs the first week it was out wanted to know what life was like for her, what it was like to be such a public figure and so grossly humiliated. I'm sure not a few of them took a guilty pleasure in reading the private details. That isn't escapism? Not in a fantastic sense, but those readers are eagerly engrossed in Hillary's 'world' all the same. No one's telling them to come to grips with reality - and I'm sure that the reality that critics of Harry Potter keep telling us to grip is not referring to the intricacies of Hillary's and Bill's intimate relationship.

I never was very good at giving a logical argument, so this has kind of run all round robin hood's barn. I don't believe that to indulge in fantasy is to lose your grip on reality, and I believe that those who feel that way do not hold much stock in imagination at all. Who wants to be friends with the Dursley's, anyway?

Escapism

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Fantasy books are by nature an escape. I wish the Bull essay had been reprinted more widely, so you could read her arguments, but this is exactly what I'm getting at. Bull argues, and I agree, that fantasy books--really well-written fantasy--is NOT an escape. Instead, Bull argues, it's a subversive way of examining painful and difficult topics, because it "gets under our guard." That, Bull suggests, is the reason that the powers that be are so anxious to associate fantasy with childishness, just so that they can dismiss its hard lessons.

[wintersweet.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[pameladean]

Tolkien says it all, too, in his essay "On Fairy-Stories." It's an old, old argument.

I haven't read the Harry Potter books yet. I bounced off the beginning of the first one (I am told by people of very disparate tastes that I should persevere, and at some point perhaps I will), but I am very wary of the mistakes the books' defenders can make too. I have been accused of jealousy because I didn't like William Gibson's Neuromancer. Nothing I said could shake my interlocutor's conviction that that and only that emotion could possibly cause anybody to fail to appreciate that work. I even listed writers I really was jealous of. But no, he knew what I thought better than I did. So please don't fall into the same trap that your attackers do and assume that only venial, selfish, denying causes could lead to a failure to appreciate Harry Potter. I'm not at all sure that I am going to appreciate it. But I might still know what I'm talking about.

(I'm not saying that the person you quote knows anything. I tend to disqualify anybody who speaks slightingly of escapism. As Tolkien points out, the only people who really have a vested interest in preventing escape are jailers. I'm just saying, watch out that you don't do the same things these people do.)

Pamela

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Oh, no, I don't mean to imply that the ONLY reason that a fantasy writer wouldn't like Rowling might be because he or she is jealous! Although I have seen jealousy, you're right, it would be ridiculous to say that it's the ONLY reason a fantasy writer might dislike the books, and I won't make that mistake, believe me. Please forgive my lack of clarity. I'll go an edit my original entry to make that clear. As for readers in general, I assure you that I understand that there are plenty of people who have perfectly legitimate reasons for disliking Rowling's work because, well, it really doesn't suit their taste, books set in English boarding schools (even magical ones) don't interest them, they don't like her style, etc. No, I agree. Rowling's books just might not work for some people.

What interested (and irritated me) is the really intense condescension in the nature of some of the criticism; I was trying to see what was behind that.

As for escapism, see my response to cliz above. Like you, I find dismissive accusations that work is "too escapist" make me suspicious. I like that quote from Tolkien about the only people with a vested interest in preventing escape are jailers. I must re-read On Fairy Stories.

[alyeska.livejournal.com]

I'm always a little afraid to tell people I like Harry Potter. I've endured the snickers and comments, especially after telling them about Nimbus. Yet these people wouldn't bat an eyelash if I said I was going to a Star Wars or Star Trek symposium. Are they any less "childish" than HP? I don't think so, but yet because HP is viewed as strictly a child's book, it should be beneath me. Even my parents don't understand what all the fuss is about and they think I'm bit off my rocker.

I may cringe a bit when I say I like Harry Potter but I'll still proudly say I'm a fan. If they can't handle it well then it's their loss I say.

[misia.livejournal.com]

I'm not a Harry fan. I tried to read the first book and it just didn't click for me. A hundred pages or so into it, I gave up.

Then again, I'm also not a Tolkien fan. On my first two or three attempts at reading The Hobbit and the Rings novels, I likewise would get a hundred pages in and then forget to go back to the books. They simply didn't grab me.

That said, I do believe, Peg, that I agree with as much of what you've written as I can without having read the HP books. Our culture has a pervasive myth it tells itself about the value of putting away "childish things" as we grow older and take on adult identities. Fantasy, SF, a lot of children's and YA writing, and Romance are all considered too childish to be taken seriously, as we know, by some.

I see it largely as a symptom of our culture's profound discomfort with, and even antagonism toward, pleasure. Heaven forbid you actually enjoy your leisure reading... and heaven forbid anyone actually be rewarded for creating something that gives people pleasure.

There's also a part of this that's about fear of scarcity -- of acceptance, approval, remuneration, influence, recognition. At root I think a great deal of it is utterly understandable. Who among us has never wanted to bellow at the sky "Why?!? Why does SHE get all the good stuff and I don't? Don't I work hard? Don't I do good things? Don't I deserve it just as much as she does?" The fears of not being deserving, of being left out, of not getting enough of whatever the goodies are, are tough to overcome.

I was veering toward a point, here, but it seems to have eluded me for the moment. Insomnia tends to have that effect on me. If I think of what I was going to lurch into to tie this all up, I'll put it in my own journal.

For now, hale-fellow-well-met and enjoy the damn books, critics be damned. After all, opinions are like assholes: everyone's got one.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Yeah, re: your point about fear of scarcity: I remember your thoughtful response to my post about career envy. I also want to hasten to assure you (in response to a remark of pameladean to my original post), that I am NOT saying that the only reason a writer might not like Rowling's books is that he/she is jealous of her career success! I wasn't clear in my original post, but I've gone and edited it to reflect that I realize that people may have other respectable reasons for disliking the books. They might not be interested in English boarding school stories, they may not like Rowling's style, etc.

Thanks for your last line. It made me laugh!

[debellatrix.livejournal.com]

Comments?
Bah!

[rhiannon333.livejournal.com]

Excellent post, Peg.

A female writer of a fantasy novel; worse, one featuring children as main characters; worse still - immensely popular, seems doomed. Any woman artist has twice the difficulty of being acknowledged as serious as a man. Fantasy is nearly always relegated to the ranks of "lesser" works of literature by certain critics. Many of them also fall into the patently stupid error of classifying anything with a child protagonist as "children's literature", with the commensurate reduction in status brought by that term. And as for anything popular being unable to be viewed as "literature" - this fallacy seems to have got worse in the past century. If the hoi polloi like it, then by definition, it is too simplistic for the post-modernist (or whatever their label) brigade. The elitism and uber-intellectualism of so much of modern literary criticism repels me. I am relieved that I am old enough and confident enough in my own views that I will happily defend the merits of JKR or JRRT (who, despite being male, wrote a popular fantasy which, as you well recall, outraged the lit crits by being voted the best book of the 20th century) or other writers whom I like and respect, in any forum. But I too am immensely irritated by the blinkered, bigoted views parading themselves as "criticism", although I mostly deal with them by ignoring them completely. (Saves the blood pressure *g*)

[saava.livejournal.com]

I stumbled here journal hopping and feel the need to comment, since I've encountered this attitude in people both online and in real life. Anyone who says that HP is light, fluffy escapism has obviously not read the books.

What really makes me sad is that some people feel such hate towards Harry Potter and its fans that they deliberately set out to ruin other people's enjoyment of the books. Several people in a certain LJ community felt the need to post, over and over again, who died in OOTP. Then, when people got mad, they defended themselves by sayin, "It's only a book, it doesn't matter."

Anyway, great post. Hope you don't mind that I'm adding you to my friends list.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

I, too, have heard stories of people who've deliberately gone out of their way to ruin the surprise in the book for other people. I can't imagine why people have to be so spitefully malicious. Trolls, I guess, live among us still.

[delirieuse.livejournal.com]

They may have got away with those comments pre-OOTP, but who in their right mind could think that OOTP was escapism, and safe, and infantile? Far less derivative than the previous books. Hogwarts is no longer safe.

[vass]

"In today's infantile culture, it's okay to aspire to be childlike."

Gaaack. Thank *Gods* for JKR and all the other authors of children's literature saying it *is* OK to be childlike. I don't see children running around destroying the future.

"These books may be popular, but then there are other fantasy novels (and fantasy novelists) who are better and more literary and who deserve all this attention more."

I didn't know it was a zero sum game. And besides, I'm noticing a lot of really good juvenile fantasy getting reprinted in nice editions and pushed at young people now that Harry Potter's so popular and fantasy is temporarily OK to read again, and I'm rather happy about that - for one thing, I read Lewis and L'Engle, but I missed Cooper and Garner and Alexander on the first go-around, and now I'm catching up.

Grrr.

[arcly.livejournal.com]

When it comes to gripping, unchallenging brain candy, the main difference with the boy wizard is that you can read about him in public, smug in the knowledge that you are part of an accepted cultural trend. In today's infantile culture, it's okay to aspire to be childlike. The latest instalment of Potter-mania, however, has taken our cultural infantilism to a new low.

What strikes me most about this is... its childishness. The whole piece makes no attempt whatsoever to actually engage with the text, and comes across as merely a hack generalisation for the sake of bucking a 'cultural trend'. It's incredibly facile: like a slightly more verbose version of an eight-year old saying: "Ner, I'm not reading that, it's for little kids, and I'm A Big Girl/Boy," or an angsty teen desperately wanting things that aren't 'mainstream' because they are Special and Different and Clever.

It just makes me snicker. I mean, I don't like the music of, say, Justin Timberlake, but I'm not going to write articles claiming that everyone who likes him is some kind of brainless moron who's just too 'infantile' to appreciate Bach or Schoenberg or Thelonious Monk or whoever. In my experience, most of the adults who read the HP books appreciate a wide range of artforms, from the intensely 'literary' to blockbuster Hollywood movies. . The writer of this article seems to be implying that picking up a Harry Potter book is tantamount to 'rejecting the adult world', as if the books were some new kind of anti-ageing device that immediately return your brain to a state of pre-teen bliss. (Which also suggests that they think childhood is some kind of angst-free state where everything is always sunny and uncomplicated, and everything turns out well in the end. Pah. The kind of safe, threat-free childhood they seem to mean here is a relatively modern invention, and also, for a huge majority of children, a myth. And I think Rowling understands that, and handles it pretty well).

I do think that the HP books have prompted a lot of adults to read more children's lit, as have the recent LotR movies. People are, perhaps, remembering that they used to read a lot of books which were fun, exciting, had plots, and weren't full of gratuitous sex scenes, long angsty paragraphs of ham philosophy or the author ticking off a list of suitably pseudo-intellectual literary references. (Not that all adult books are like this, but you get my drift). And yes, they are going out and buying them, reading them in public, and not feeling as if they have to be furtive about it. I see that as more of a liberation from constraints on what they 'should' read than a sign of intellectual poverty. It's also had the effect of blurring the boundaries between children's and adult fiction in an interesting way, so that you get children's books playing with quantum physics (His Dark Materials) and Booker Prize-winning 'adult' literature about a little boy drifting in a boat (Life of Pi). I think what's important to remember here is that definitions of what is 'adult' fiction and what is 'children's' fiction are mostly arbitrary, and made up for marketing purposes. Anything that smashes open those rigid little categories has to be a good thing.

[oracne.livejournal.com]

Russ talks about how women's writing is marginalized, and I see her observations operating here in these articles: She wrote it, but it isn't high art, literary, sophisticated. She wrote it, but she doesn't deserve the fame. She wrote it but it's too popular, and therefore not worthy of the attention of people with really superior taste. She wrote it, but it's about silly little childish things (like friendship, courage, self-sacrifice and death). She wrote it, but it's really just escapism (friendship, courage, self-sacrifice and death??? Escapism???)

You rock, Peg!

[redbird]

Also toss in Le Guin's essay "Why are Americans afraid of dragons?" (it's in The Language of the Night) on the people who dismiss fantasy.

Those dismissive English lit types probably accept Dickens, who was scorned by the academy for a long time because ordinary people liked his work.

(I haven't read OOTP yet: I have a large to-be-read queue, so am waiting for the paperback or someone to lend me a copy.)

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

I wonder where these same critics stand on Tolkien, or Martin, or Kay? Having recently reread LoTR, and read Tigana for the first time, and started Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series, I can group them all together in what I consider "complex" fantasy writing. I love all of them. I also love the Harry Potter books immensely. Rowling is a -faster read- for me, and that is the -only- reason I wouldn't put HP under the same "complex" label. However, I see the adult themes and threads and gray areas that do make it a complex story, particularly with GoF and OoTP. I tend to dismiss what the critics say and read what I like. :-)

[resmiranda.livejournal.com]

First, may I have permission to link to this in my journal? It's a wonderful, thoughtful essay.

Second, I am somewhat disheartened by the point you made concerning Rowlings' gender. Is it really so hard for a woman to be taken seriously in the literary world? (You should know, of course, so this isn't a rhetorical question - I am genuinely interested.)

It intrigues me that there are such disparate views concerning what is childish and what is not. Are courage and love and sacrifice and goodness childish? Why do we tend to think of them as such? Is it because we read about those things when we are children? When we are young, we pick up a book and read about the hero, who overcomes odds and triumphs over evil - perhaps it is because we associate this sort of story with our lost innocence that literary critics think of such themes as infantile. Perhaps this is why JKRs work, with these themes, is classified as escapism - a longing to return to that time when 'we believed' in those things.

It's telling that love, courage, and goodness are considered infantile, while cynicism, bitterness, and ennui are considered mature.

(I feel a thoughtful post coming on, so I'll leave off there and not clutter up your LJ any more. ;) )

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Sure, go ahead and link, if you'd like.

Re: gender. Rowling presents an interesting case for the arbiters of high literature because she is so wildly popular. I believe she has said in interviews that her editor told her to use her initials, because boys would be less likely to read the book if they thought she was a woman. I think it will be interesting to see what will happen in the next ten to twenty years or so, as the critics come to grips with her work. In some respects, critics have to withhold their final judgment for the time being, because the series isn't finished yet.

Have you read Russ's How to Suppress Women's Writing?

Yes, I think that it's sad that cynicism is considered mature. I remember very vividly a comment made by another graduate student I knew when I was working on my doctorate in English (I ended up stopping with just my M.A. degree. He was complaining once about the lack of sophistication of some of the English graduate students. "Imagine," he fumed, "Some people are working on their doctorates simply because they like to read books. I remember walking away from the conversation shaking my head, wondering, what on earth did he think was a better, more legitimate reason to study literature?

Peg

The difficulty for me...

[ascian.livejournal.com]

...has always been separating my feelings for the disgusting media hype from the works around which that hype has been constructed. I speak not only of Rowling's works, but *countless* other pieces of creativity that have been glorified as the next flash in the pan. For instance, it wasn't until the fervor died down and radio stations *stopped* playing it daily that I discovered that I found 'Who Let The Dogs Out' to be quite catchy and enjoyable.

I felt the same with Pokemon. Absolutely loathed the vile stuff because it wouldn't leave me the hell alone in my cozy little hermit shell. Here I wanted to go about my life, and I couldn't get away from commercials, t-shirts, promotional toys in children's meals, the entire disgusting gamut of commercial deification. After it died down I discovered that it wasn't so bad, and I really like the antics of Team Rocket. It's simply a matter of restraining the counter-culture kneejerk.

So Harry and company have had their rough rides through the seas of opinion and disdain in my mind. And, in fact, they probably would still be if not for the presence of people I know largely by Livejournal who aren't simply screaming 'ahrry pottar is teh best EVAR!!!' It's people like you and other members of the fandom who've prematurely plucked me from the loathing for Potter that the capitalist process has inspired in me.

I can't say I like the books themselves any more now, but what I *can* say is that I'm willing to give them another chance. I didn't get far into the first one before the writing style grated down to a nerve, but I'm wondering in retrospect how short my fuse already was. So, thanks to you folks, I'll be giving the books another chance.

My father's getting into them (starting at book 3 because he's already seen the movies of the first two 9_9), so I've got a pretty much guaranteed supply of sequels if I do find myself catching onto the stuff.

Erm, slightly rambling post, sorry about that. Sum up; hated Potter for media blitz, made sensible by good and rational people who like it, going to give it another chance to be sure.