 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
The success of these books is a tragedy for English Literature. Grown ups reading childrens' books. Pah! |
You're confusing cause and effect. The success of these books is not a tragedy for English Literature, but brought about by the tragedy of Modern (not exclusively English)Literature. Specifically, their popularity seems to me a direct response to Modern Lit abandoning:
1) Grand narrative
2) Clear, unapologetic morality
3) The notion that reading itself can be an ennobling act
In that respect, the Harry Potter books are a throwback to the 19th century, when no separate category, "Children's Literature" even existed. Critics and academics -- and I used to be one -- are far too jaded-ironic-hip to get that the kinds of things that animated Dickens' readership can still animate a readership.
That's not to say that Rowlings is a Dickens. Far from it. (My chief gripe with her is that her books are a kind of mosaic made from pieces of other, better, books --though she does blend them well). But she does point to a void that contemporary lit has failed to fill, or has even helped create.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nostromo
|
 |
Montréal, Québec
Mar 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Nah. Aggie' repeating a standard complaint about the books, I'm repeating my standard answer. It's far more like kabuki than fishing. |
I know  My friends sometimes ask me, amazed : "you actually enjoy reading? You have fun reading?"  If people read less (if they do read less, I'm not even sure about that), I don't think modernist litterature is the cause. After all, for every Paul Auster, there are 100 Stephen Kings, Robert Ludlums or Danielle Steels. Not to mention the classics, like Dickens. If people read less, its more probably because of the competition: TV, the Internet and the movies...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nostromo
I know My friends sometimes ask me, amazed : "you actually enjoy reading? You have fun reading?" If people read less (if they do read less, I'm not even sure about that), I don't think modernist litterature is the cause. After all, for every Paul Auster, there are 100 Stephen Kings, Robert Ludlums or Danielle Steels. Not to mention the classics, like Dickens. If people read less, its more probably because of the competition: TV, the Internet and the movies... |
On that I agree. The difference between the Rowling books and King, Ludlum, Steele, etc., though, is the wholesomeness of the series; this is another point of commonality with Dickens, and another thing that's selling them. As for just reading Dickens himself: sadly contemporary English speakers have a far, far smaller vocabulary than do 19th century speakers, and a lower attention span to boot; that's what makes 19th century lit (or anything pre-WWII except, inexplicably, Gone With the Wind) such a turn off for the average reader today.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-07-2005 02:15
.
ACK!
|