The Decline of Potter-Bashing

Harold Bloom, writing in The Wall Street Journal seven years ago, showed us a flash of a better approach to sneering at Harry Potter:

The ultimate model for Harry Potter is "Tom Brown's School Days" by Thomas Hughes, published in 1857. The book depicts the Rugby School presided over by the formidable Thomas Arnold, remembered now primarily as the father of Matthew Arnold, the Victorian critic-poet. But Hughes' book, still quite readable, was realism, not fantasy. Rowling has taken "Tom Brown's School Days" and re-seen it in the magical mirror of Tolkein. The resultant blend of a schoolboy ethos with a liberation from the constraints of reality-testing may read oddly to me, but is exactly what millions of children and their parents desire and welcome at this time.

You know what? That's interesting! Unfortunately, instead of continuing in that vein of saying interesting things about the relationship of JK Rowling's books to the English boarding school genre, we get a predictable rant about the sad state of things.

Comments

Kipling wrote a great "school" book -- Stalky and Co -- and wrote a dreary "magic" book -- Puck of Pook's Hill. I can't imagine that blending the two genres would overcome the deficiencies of the "magic" contribution so much that the combination would be an improvement on either.

I can't get in a lather about it. The movie I saw -- the first -- was deadly dull and apparently followed the book closely. If that's what people want, that's what people want. There's nothing in Tom Brown + Magic that appeals to me, but there's no arguing taste.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 18, 2007 11:07 AM

Coincidentally, I was mentioning to a Harry Potter fan on Sunday how incredibly mild Hogwarts seemed for an English "public school"--where's the "fagging" and other general humiliation?

I'm not saying that brutal realism is a necessary precondition for great literature, but Harold Bloom seems far too kind when he says it reads "oddly." For me, one central failing of the HP books is that they're so shallow and sanitized that (as A.S. Byatt pointed out in another review of the time) they're really only of interest to pre-adults.

(OT: The "English schoolboy genre" includes a lot of great books--Roald Dahl's "Boy" immediately comes to mind.)

Posted by James Gary | July 18, 2007 11:09 AM

I agree, Potter-bashing used to be done with far more style. But why has Potter-bashing declined so precipitously in the last few years? I blame J. K. Rowling -- after all, this is largely her doing. Also, as Ron Charles points out, "since Harry Potter first Apparated into our lives a decade ago, the number of stand-alone book sections in major metropolitan newspapers has decreased by half -- silencing critical voices that once helped a wide variety of authors around the country get noticed." She may also be to blame for the remarkable decline in CD sales since 1997.

Posted by Michael Bérubé | July 18, 2007 11:09 AM

"The ultimate model for Harry Potter is "Tom Brown's School Days" by Thomas Hughes, published in 1857."

This is true if 'ultimate' means 'not', which I kinda think it does.

Posted by lampwick | July 18, 2007 11:10 AM

Consider a different perspective: Bloom's piece simultaneously informs the reader and critiques the book. His goal in this piece isn't to persuade Harry Potter readers to read other stuff, but to comment on the phenomenon. (Read his Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human if you want persuasion.) And he does mention work that is better (as well as work that is worse). What more do you want? Are restaurant critics required to tell us something positive about restaurants they consider bad?

Posted by RSA | July 18, 2007 11:11 AM

Was "The Chocolate War" an American attempt at this "English schoolboy genre"?

Posted by Fred | July 18, 2007 11:11 AM

Michael Berube has some excellent points. I also blame Ms. Rowling for the deplorable popularity of reality television, and the decline of quality sit-coms.

Posted by peep | July 18, 2007 11:13 AM

One is usually guaranteed at least one insight in anything Bloom writes, but the insightful parts are increasingly a small percentage of his work.

Bérubé left out Rowling's pernicious effect on the academy, which has become even more liberal and totalitarian thanks to her. ... David Horowitz probably cheered when that liberal hippie Dumbledore bit the dust. Now that I think about it, DH looks rather like Snape as drawn in the American editions.

Posted by Anderson | July 18, 2007 11:20 AM

I also blame Ms. Rowling for the deplorable popularity of reality television, and the decline of quality sit-coms.

Don't forget the price of gasoline, Hurricane Katrina, and original sin.

Posted by rea | July 18, 2007 11:22 AM

Thank God Yglesias is here to defend defenseless Harry Potter against these evil all powerful literary critics.

He really is a hero, always fighting for the underdog.

Posted by rk | July 18, 2007 11:24 AM

Bérubé left out Rowling's pernicious effect on the academy, which has become even more liberal and totalitarian thanks to her.

Oh my Snapes and Umbridges, I can't believe I forgot to mention this. I blame . . . well, you can just guess who's ultimately responsible for this one. If your powers of ratiocination haven't been totally eroded by the Harry Potter books, that is.

Posted by Michael Bérubé | July 18, 2007 11:27 AM

Thank God Yglesias is here to defend defenseless Harry Potter against these evil all powerful literary critics.

Thomas Kinkade is calling on line three. . .

Posted by RSA | July 18, 2007 11:30 AM

Bloom is saying something interesting, but I think "Tom Brown's Schooldays" is not really the strongest influence on Rowling that the English boarding school genre provides. As Bloom correctly says it's extremely realistic, and actually its intent was more towards encouraging reform of schools than entertainment.

The closest models are books in the genre aimed at children, and written more carefully from the perspective of school age protagonists, such as The Jennings series by Anthony Buckeridge, and the works of Frank Richard, especially the Billy Bunter books.

Orwell wrote an interesting essay that discusses the latter in part.

http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/boysweeklies.html

One can't blame Bloom for not having read books in the genre intended for and read by children and young adults, but just because "Tom Brown's schooldays" is a British book set in a boarding school, it doesn't follow it's an influence on Rowling's work.

Posted by Alan de Bristol | July 18, 2007 11:41 AM

I haven't read the books as fantasies and magic are not my cup of tea, but I kind of liked the first movie, perhaps because I went to a boarding school.

Nevertheless I don't get all this fuss about the books. Would Matt have written about the phenomenon of the Cabbage Patch dolls?

Posted by gregor | July 18, 2007 11:51 AM

I've never read the Potter books, though my kids have, and who knows, I bet I might like them if I did, but in a way I sort of understand where he's coming from, basically because of the 'Pirates of the Carribean' movie.

I love old pirate movies, "Captain Blood" being my favorite, though in the world of Captain Blood, the slaves in the Carribean being all white makes me wince somewhat. "Robin Hood" with Errol Flynn is a masterpiece in my book, it's one of my kids' favorites too. If it's got Errol Flynn and Olivia DeHavilland in it, I'll watch. When I've seen all these 'Pirates of the Carribean' movies though, all the magic turns me off mightily, pirate movies don't need magic in them to be cool. In fact, a biography of Henry Morgan or Francis Drake, if well written, is just as good as any boy's fiction book about pirates, which is why 'realistic' fictional pirate movies, where the hero is usually a better and more admirable man than the historical Morgan or Drake, if well done, are so good.

The thing that really got my goat about that Wash Post critic MY linked to further down is that he thought fictional or fantastic accounts where the theme was 'good and evil' or 'herosim' were childish and not grown up, just about defines the decadent dilletante, men without chests per CS Lewis, and MY's pejorative take on him is spot on. But I like the circus, so I guess I'm one of those 'children of all ages', and if losing my taste for the circus and tales about heroism, good and evil, (the Iliad and the Odyssey and the Aeneid would fall under this too), they can keep 'grown up'.

Posted by j mct | July 18, 2007 11:52 AM

Coincidentally, I was mentioning to a Harry Potter fan on Sunday how incredibly mild Hogwarts seemed for an English "public school"--where's the "fagging" and other general humiliation?

My goodness. Well, you know, if you were to completely ignore the vicious inter-house rivalries, hallway hexes and fistfights, verbal abuse, brutality during sporting matches, sadistic teachers, physical and psychological torture by rogue administrators from the Rowling books, one might easily get the idea that she painted a charming and cheerful portrait of English boarding schools that completely glosses over the general humiliation that students at those schools often endure.

Posted by Random Passerby | July 18, 2007 11:56 AM

Alan de Bristol calls it. A long time ago CS Lewis wrote an essay about "school stories," which he described as exercises in worldly wish-fulfillment -- I want to be good at games, I want to be popular, etc. Here we have Henry Potter excelling at quidditch and showing up the school snobs, but with magic thrown in (since quidditch isn't rugby and can't be played in the natural world).

Posted by Kyle | July 18, 2007 12:05 PM

1. I dunno about "Harry Potter," but without "Tom Brown's Schooldays" there wouldn't be the "Flashman" books, which are awesome.

2. peep: Bill Clinton killed the quality sitcom when his FCC repealed fin-syn.

Posted by delicious Pundit | July 18, 2007 12:05 PM

I'll add that the HP books aren't quite as bad as their forebears since JK Rowling apparently has decent values and recognizes there's more to life than a public school's social hierarchy.

Posted by Kyle | July 18, 2007 12:08 PM

I forgot to second Jeffrey Davis' opinion about Kipling's "Stalky and Co." above. Kipling successfully portrays adolescent males who are realistic and recognisable both to readers who are adolescent males and those who have been, even at some remove in time. I think it also brilliantly suggests the ways in which the thought and behaviour of those who have undergone boarding school are moulded by the experience, by the institution itself and the socialisation among boys themselves.

Posted by Alan de Bristol | July 18, 2007 12:16 PM

I'm too terrified to say anything about this subject again except to say:

I agree, Potter-bashing used to be done with far more style. But why has Potter-bashing declined so precipitously in the last few years? I blame J. K. Rowling -- after all, this is largely her doing. Also, as Ron Charles points out, "since Harry Potter first Apparated into our lives a decade ago, the number of stand-alone book sections in major metropolitan newspapers has decreased by half -- silencing critical voices that once helped a wide variety of authors around the country get noticed." She may also be to blame for the remarkable decline in CD sales since 1997.

It's true that Ron Charles is wrong to blame Harry Potter for this. It's equally wrong, though, to blame Ron Charles for turning off throngs of potential readers, as MY did yesterday. It's wrong to blame JK Rowling for the declining number of Book sections in newspapers; but it's equally wrong to assign any particular cultural force to Ron Charles whatsoever.

Posted by Freddie | July 18, 2007 12:20 PM

You know what? That's interesting! Unfortunately, instead of continuing in that vein of saying interesting things about the relationship of JK Rowling's books to the English boarding school genre, we get a predictable rant about the sad state of things.

Okay, I really shouldn't, but-- Here's what I don't get. What if Bloom really thinks the "sad state of things" is how it is? What I mean is, if you disagree with him on the merits of that thinking, go to it. But what I find weird is your notion that Harold Bloom, or Ron Charles, is failing because they aren't being ambassadors for reading. That isn't Harold Blooms job. His job is to be a literary critic and professor, and sometimes in doing that job, he'll reach a critical conclusion you don't agree with. Again, fire away when it comes to that position itself. I just don't understand why either of them have to be emissaries of reading.

Posted by Freddie | July 18, 2007 12:26 PM

One can't blame Bloom for not having read books in the genre intended for and read by children and young adults

Oh yes, one can. He's anthologised at least two children's literture collections under exceptionally snobbish titles which elude me right now.

Posted by Jackmormon | July 18, 2007 12:26 PM

the vicious inter-house rivalries, hallway hexes and fistfights, verbal abuse, brutality during sporting matches, sadistic teachers, physical and psychological torture by rogue administrators

Echoing comments made by Alan de Bristol and Kyle, at no point did I have the slightest doubt as a reader that Harry would emerge triumphant in the above-listed struggles--he's the "chosen one," after all, and that makes the stories dull and tensionless for me.

Similarly, I find annoying all the hullabaloo about whether or not Harry dies in the upcoming book --I mean, either he triumphs against Voldemort or, Christlike, Harry makes the ultimate sacrifice against evil. If one is twelve years old and encountering the "hero's journey" plotline for the very first time, maybe one cares.

Posted by James Gary | July 18, 2007 12:34 PM

Is Harry Potter-bashing really the common activity many commenters (pro or con) here seem to regard it as? I was under the impression critics generally loved the books. In the article linked to, Bloom clearly regards himself as being contrarian, not just against the hoi polloi but against other critics.

Posted by James Kabala | July 18, 2007 12:38 PM

Charles doesn't actually blame HP for the decline in book sections or the decline in general readership. His point was simply to lament that this massively popular series of books did nothing to halt the decline in any sort of literary culture. It's not really a fair point, but Charles isn't saying that HP is actually responsible for these things, as far as I can tell.

Posted by blah | July 18, 2007 12:44 PM

To be more specific, Charles lays some of the blame at the feet of the media hype machine. He writes:

Through no fault of Rowling's, Potter mania nonetheless trains children and adults to expect the roar of the coliseum, a mass-media experience that no other novel can possibly provide.

Not that I expect Potter fans to be particularly attentive readers.

Posted by blah | July 18, 2007 12:48 PM

Yeah, but Charles is clearly implying a correlation between the rise of Harry Potter and the disappearance of serious reviewing venues, and that's just insane. It's also kinda annoying. Here's why. The state of serious book reviewing by major American dailies in the US -- other than the Times -- is utterly abysmal, and even worse than utterly abysmal when it comes to fiction. Never mind the disappearance of stand-alone book sections, which is bad enough; the WaPo and Chicago Tribune stand-alone book sections are just terrible. So this is a case where the beam is lodged pretty damn firmly in the eye of the beholder.

And for that, I blame Matt Yglesias.

Posted by Michael Bérubé | July 18, 2007 12:49 PM

Well, you know, if you were to completely ignore the vicious inter-house rivalries, hallway hexes and fistfights, verbal abuse, brutality during sporting matches, sadistic teachers, physical and psychological torture by rogue administrators from the Rowling books, one might easily get the idea that she painted a charming and cheerful portrait of English boarding schools that completely glosses over the general humiliation that students at those schools often endure.

True, but I think James Gary still had a point about this. Where's the gay-bashing? Why don't any of the girls get date-raped? Is the occasional hex really the worst thing that ever happens to Neville?

It's true enough, and a problem but one which exists almost everywhere in the genre, that Harry is "the chosen one," so he's immune. More specifically, he's neither a bully nor a target of them, and it makes sense as much as anything does in the story. And some real-world problems have magical analogues. But on the relatively rare occasions when stuff comes up like what's missing, it stands out because of the relative absence. For example, the holiday dance scene in book four, when Harry and Ron are hiding under the bushes to eavesdrop and they get interrupted by people who are hiding under the next one over to make out. Are the main characters emotional cripples or are British private (magical) schools very, very weird places or what?

Posted by Cyrus | July 18, 2007 12:54 PM

I think what Yglesias thinks come off as anti-elitist posts here, are more on the anti-intellectual side of things.

He's kind of like Glenn Reynolds and all those folks, who cry and whine when they don't like what scientists have to say about global warming. They skip the intellectual part and proceed right into the personal invective.

Nowhere do I see any of these critics attacking the pure entertainment value of the Potter books, which is as I understand why (older) people read them. They simply assess the books' literary worth which is little.

I think it's fine that people find the books entertaining, and that kids are reading. Could they be reading something more valuable, of course.

Seeing some 26 year old political blogger railing against literary critics who, as he said in comments yesterday, "make themselves come across as horribly unpleasant people whom one would never want to meet or speak to, and whose primary interest in books is as an adjunct to the vicious hatred of human beings" is a little pathetic and a little strange.

Posted by rk | July 18, 2007 12:59 PM

What if Bloom really thinks the "sad state of things" is how it is? What I mean is, if you disagree with him on the merits of that thinking, go to it. But what I find weird is your notion that Harold Bloom, or Ron Charles, is failing because they aren't being ambassadors for reading. That isn't Harold Blooms job. His job is to be a literary critic and professor, and sometimes in doing that job, he'll reach a critical conclusion you don't agree with. Again, fire away when it comes to that position itself. I just don't understand why either of them have to be emissaries of reading.

I don't quite think this is the problem, at least with Bloom. Bloom certainly thinks he's an emissary of reading--but only sofar as you're reading the great works he allows in his canon, and reading them within the narrow frameworks of "genius" and literary influence. In recent years, he hasn't been a literary critic, but rather a self-styled cultural arbiter, decrying the pernicious influence of literary theory, and the failure of English professors to constantly and unquestionably bow to the undeniably singular genius of Shakespeare. In his critical conservatism masquerading as open inquiry, he's become the Joe Lieberman of English Departments. (He's even a yoostabee--the man was one of the Yale group who [to some degree] introduced poststructuralism to America; now, for him, theory must be destroyed.)

Posted by thefax | July 18, 2007 1:00 PM

Yeah, but Charles is clearly implying a correlation between the rise of Harry Potter and the disappearance of serious reviewing venues, and that's just insane. It's also kinda annoying.

Sure. But to give it appropriate context, Matt's point yesterday was that people like Ron Charles (the literati, as they said) make reading seem unattractive to the masses because they are so pompous. And I find that as absurd as you find the notion that Harry Potter is responsible for the disappearance of the newspaper books section. The literati? Can you imagine a less powerful, less influential group? You scoff at the notion of JK Rowling having the kind of influence Ron Charles suggests she has-- and correctly so in this instance, I think-- but there's no question Rowling has more power and influence than every book reviewer, essayist, critic and professor in the world.

Posted by Freddie | July 18, 2007 1:00 PM

True, but I think James Gary still had a point about this. Where's the gay-bashing? Why don't any of the girls get date-raped? Is the occasional hex really the worst thing that ever happens to Neville?

Also, nobody ever seems to go to the bathroom, except to hide from bad guys or talk to ghosts. I get the sense that there are a lot of other books out there which also don't involve date-rape.

Posted by Steve | July 18, 2007 1:01 PM

Bloom certainly thinks he's an emissary of reading--but only sofar as you're reading the great works he allows in his canon, and reading them within the narrow frameworks of "genius" and literary influence.

That's very true. Bloom is a bit of a blowhard. I have felt in the past that, perhaps, Bloom feels like he has to portray that character-- the old school, keeper-of-the-canon thing-- because it helps sell books. And if what I've heard about his family situation is correct, I certainly can't blame him for trying to sell as many books as possible.

Posted by Freddie | July 18, 2007 1:04 PM

It's equally wrong, though, to blame Ron Charles for turning off throngs of potential readers, as MY did yesterday.

But what I find weird is your notion that Harold Bloom, or Ron Charles, is failing because they aren't being ambassadors for reading. That isn't Harold Blooms job. His job is to be a literary critic and professor, and sometimes in doing that job, he'll reach a critical conclusion you don't agree with.

Are we even reading the same blog, Freddie?

Matt bashed Charles, a critic, for not seizing a moment to actually write critically about the book in an interesting way, instead writing a big bellyache about its popularity. Today, Matt praises Bloom for writing something that adds to the discussion.

The conclusion of Charles and Bloom's critiques (in an up-or-down sense) is not the point, nor the reason for the complaint.

Being a critic is not the same as being an ambassador or shill. On the flip side, being a critic of a field does sort of imply that you think there is worthwhile value to be found in that field.

A good critic (Bloom, in this case) should have something worthwhile to say about their form, and about massively popular works in their field. Such criticism, if written engagingly, should actually increase the audience of that field, regardless of its particular conclusion.

A bad critic (Charles, here) writes a piece about how popular works are infantile, insulting his audience without actually making meaningful discussion of the work.

Is this so hard to get?

Posted by Brad L | July 18, 2007 1:05 PM

at no point did I have the slightest doubt as a reader that Harry would emerge triumphant in the above-listed struggles

he's lost many of them.

he gets detention, has to do extra work after class for mouthing-off in class, he gets beat up, he gets hurt, his friends get hurt, they stop talking to him, he loses the girl, etc.. sure, he comes out OK in the end (just like Luke, Indy, Kirk, John McLane, Rambo, Chuck Norris, etc.), but he doesn't win every battle or skirmish.

Posted by cleek | July 18, 2007 1:05 PM

First of all, I think you need to read a little bit more carefully Bloom's opinion, Brad.

Is this so hard to get?

I don't think it's appropriate or constructive to represent your personal opinion about the job as a critic as some fact you either get or don't.

Put the knives away. No mas.

Posted by Freddie | July 18, 2007 1:12 PM

Charles did not say that popular works are infantile. He suggested that there is a phenomenon of "cultural infantilism" where general readership is down and the most popular books among adults are those originally written for kids and teens. He wasn't really trying to say anything meaningful about the quality of the works themselves, but rather what he thought their popularity represented in our current culture.

Posted by blah | July 18, 2007 1:20 PM

The conclusion of Charles and Bloom's critiques (in an up-or-down sense) is not the point, nor the reason for the complaint.

From this passage

Unfortunately, instead of continuing in that vein of saying interesting things about the relationship of JK Rowling's books to the English boarding school genre, we get a predictable rant about the sad state of things.

we know that the up-or-down conclusion is exactly what Matt is intolerant of, and will continue to be intolerant of even if his requirements for "interesting" things said is met. Like GOP folk who complain that people who oppose the war fail to support the troops, apparently to oppose or even be mildly disappointed in Harry Potter is to display "vicious hatred of human beings".

Honestly, I think the books are entertaining. I don't equate them with humanity, though.

Posted by Consumatopia | July 18, 2007 1:35 PM

He suggested that there is a phenomenon of "cultural infantilism" where general readership is down and the most popular books among adults are those originally written for kids and teens. He wasn't really trying to say anything meaningful about the quality of the works themselves, but rather what he thought their popularity represented in our current culture.

It would have been better if he said "youth-centrism" or something less inflammatory.

Posted by Consumatopia | July 18, 2007 1:42 PM

Many literary critics (and Bloom definitely) come across as nothing more than big fat whiners complaining about how the world doesn't appreciate their obviously superior judgement and cultural nuance.

There's an incestuous little mutual-back scratching society between far too many literary critics and "modern serious writers." Yes, I know, the Authors are Very Serious and Deal With Real Things and We All Must Appreciate Them, helped on by the reverential support by the literary critics. Lord save me from anyone who sets out to write the Great American Novel. Lord save me from the Tortured Artist Just Writhing With Angst.

Posted by grumpy realist | July 18, 2007 1:42 PM

Instead of predictable rants about the sad state of literary criticism, perhaps you guys could say something interesting about it, relate current critics to the broad sweep of literary culture, or at least recommend alternative critics to read. It's people like you who turn people against literary criticism altogether.

Posted by blah | July 18, 2007 1:46 PM

"From this passage

Unfortunately, instead of continuing in that vein of saying interesting things about the relationship of JK Rowling's books to the English boarding school genre, we get a predictable rant about the sad state of things.

we know that the up-or-down conclusion is exactly what Matt is intolerant of,"

How do you get that? Right in that bit that you quote, he is bashing a predictable rant about the sad state of things. What does the "state of things" have to do with the book and its merits?

Discussion about the state of things is a cultural criticism, not a literary one, and it is one that tends to make the critic sound (gasp) snobbish and intolerant, or petulant, etc etc. The Charles piece, in particular, wasn't even so much a critique as a lament, and what's the value of that? It's like watching an old man groan about "kids today..."

Posted by Brad L | July 18, 2007 1:58 PM

Also, nobody ever seems to go to the bathroom, except to hide from bad guys or talk to ghosts. I get the sense that there are a lot of other books out there which also don't involve date-rape.

Exactly. Look, if you want to make the rather obvious point that the Potter books are less witty and scathingly anti-authoritarian than Dahl, the prose is less mesmerizing than Byatt, the stories are occasionally derivative and predictable, and the books fail to address every possible social issue that rears its ugly head in English boarding schools, then they're going to fail to meet your expectations. There have also been better English-language novels by each of those standards written during the past 10 years that have suffered a sad, neglected fate. I doubt anyone here would disagree with those contentions.

But there's also a tendency of people who read only the first book or two in the series, if that, to level demonstrably false and occasionally nasty criticisms against the series. I think this a source of much of the tension.

There is, in fact, a scene of attempted date rape in the sixth book. It's not presented as "hey, look, let's talk about date rape) but it's there. Harry makes at least one mistake that leads to the death of someone he cares about. The whole "blood purity" thread is an almost painfully-obvious metaphor for dealing with racism and homophobia, and older children are smart enough to pick up on that. The willingness to deal frankly with violence and death shouldn't be lightly dismissed.

If you want people to respond favorably to your criticism of the books, it would help to read the books.

Posted by Random Passerby | July 18, 2007 2:00 PM

I'm sorry I ever said that Harry Potter readers are morons and probably were crack babies. I didn't mean it. I was trying to be funny. Now my life has been ruined because of a little casual trolling.

Really. I'm cool with you guys. I was just kidding.

Posted by John Emerson | July 18, 2007 2:07 PM

Not appropos to the argument most people are having here, but I saw the first couple of HP movies (haven't read the books but may do so someday), and while I found them decently entertaining, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was watching the escape fantasy of an abused and unloved child--sort of a proto-"Pan's Labrynth."

Posted by Jake H. | July 18, 2007 2:15 PM

I don't think it's appropriate or constructive to represent your personal opinion about the job as a critic as some fact you either get or don't.

Ok, you don't like my one-sentence bit of snark.

I wasn't suggesting that it was a fact that you get, just that this was an opinion that was well-expressed originally and easily understood.

The initial point was that a critic was doing his job really poorly and that a better critic might help inspire interest, not that his snobbishness was actively costing readers.

(If you think I am wrong, and that your take on the intent of the post is better, it might've helped to demonstrate that in some way, such as with a direct quote).

BTW: The whole "you represent opinion as fact" argument is one of my net peeves. If I say "sushi is tasty," or "this thread is finally getting old," an average reader can understand this is an opinion without me saying "IMO" every time I type.

But, for exceptional clarification:
I think a good critic should add something of value to the discussion about popular works in his field.

(I am also surprised this might be controversial.)

Put the knives away. No mas.

You know, I've never sworn at anyone here, nor made any kind of slightly more civil ad-hominem attack about tastes. I really was genuinely surprised that such a simple point could be carried so far afield, that's all.

Cheers.

Posted by Brad L | July 18, 2007 2:19 PM

> that Harry is "the chosen one," so he's
> immune. More specifically, he's neither a
> bully nor a target of them, and it makes
> sense as much as anything does in the story

Besides the fact that it is still not clear if Harry is the "chosen one", or if he will get out of the whole thing without some serious harm, you apparently missed the 5th book where the entire Wizarding nation, its government, and its dominant newspaper made him the scapegoat for their fears (that sounds familiar) and dragged about 60% of Harry's classmates along. Which condition lasted for a full school year. That would be a bit painful I would think.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | July 18, 2007 3:04 PM

Don't mess with the Potterheads. Take a lesson from me.

Posted by John Emerson | July 18, 2007 3:45 PM

BTW: The whole "you represent opinion as fact" argument is one of my net peeves. If I say "sushi is tasty," or "this thread is finally getting old," an average reader can understand this is an opinion without me saying "IMO" every time I type.

True enough. I do think that the "you get it or you don't" construction implies a kind of right/wrong dynamic, but whatever.

Posted by Freddie | July 18, 2007 3:54 PM

What I don't understand about Yglesias's original post is why he expects a person who thinks the popularity of the Potter books among adults is a lamentable cultural trend to say anything "smart and insightful" about the actual content of the books. I mean, if someone were writing a column about their opinion that reality TV is a lamentable trend in television, you wouldn't expect them to then spend the column talking about interesting themes within reality TV for the purposes of drawing reality TV fans into watching Masterpiece Theatre or something.

Posted by rabia | July 18, 2007 4:35 PM

Brad L said:
"Are we even reading the same blog, Freddie?"

I'm bolding the part of Yglesias's original post that that I think must have led Freddie to conclude that he was calling on literary journalists to be ambassadors of reading.

"This, it seems to me, might be a moment of opportunity for a literary critic. A chance for someone with the requisite chops to publish in the popular press an article that said something about the Potter books as literature, something smart and insightful that made me think "hey, this guy has smart things to say about books!" Something that would situate the books in some kind of context vis-a-vis the much larger cultural sweep of the novel. Something that might get an intelligence person who enjoyed the Potter books interested in some larger, more highbrow segment of the literary enterprise."

Posted by rabia | July 18, 2007 4:36 PM

I do think that the "you get it or you don't" construction implies a kind of right/wrong dynamic, but whatever.

Well, that's true. This is a continuation of the earlier thread, but I never understood how you came to the conclusion that MY thinks snobbery reduces readership. I think that was just a wrong takeaway from the post, and it is a right-wrong question - either he did or didn't say that or something like it.

(I suppose whether he implied it is a matter of opinion. I think that whiny critics don't turn people off to reading anything besides whiny criticisms, and probably don't turn people on to reading much of anything. I do think good critics expand horizons.)

To me, it's as though he said "I didn't like that potato stew, and the waiter smelled bad," and there was a massive thread that followed wherein somehow it was claimed that he said bad-smelling waiters led to the decline in quality of potato stew. Oh, the passions that might be flamed by talk of stew, just probably not on this blog.

Posted by Brad L | July 18, 2007 4:47 PM

How do you get that? Right in that bit that you quote, he is bashing a predictable rant about the sad state of things. What does the "state of things" have to do with the book and its merits?

Oh, so to "situate the books in some kind of context vis-a-vis the much larger cultural sweep of the novel" is only acceptable if you like both the cultural sweep and the books?

I *do* kind of wish that there were more critics who said "if you like HP, you'll like X" where X might still be entertaining but perhaps profound in different ways than HP is. But that doesn't have to be *every* critic's job.

Posted by Consumatopia | July 18, 2007 4:53 PM

...if someone were writing a column about their opinion that reality TV is a lamentable trend in television, you wouldn't expect them to then spend the column talking about interesting themes within reality TV

No, but you might expect them to discuss scripted TV as counterpoint. It's perfectly fair critical ground to contrast what you dislike with what might be better, so if you found the TV weak in an area where there are strong examples, you discuss how and why it's weak.

Though I take your point, comparing reality TV to scripted is a little misleading -- they are essentially different forms. You can't compare the acting or writing, and the staging/shooting/editing have wildly different requirements that make comparison tough.

Potter, good or bad, is still basically a novel, and can be compared with other novels in equal terms, using their commonalities.

I'm bolding the part of Yglesias's original post that that I think must have led Freddie to conclude that he was calling on literary journalists to be ambassadors of reading.

This, it seems to me, might be a moment of opportunity for a literary critic... Something that might get an intelligence person who enjoyed the Potter books interested in some larger, more highbrow segment of the literary enterprise."

Thanks for making the claim explicit, rabia... (something that really never happened earlier). My take on this was that the point is that a good critic adds, and that by not producing good criticism, an opportunity was wasted.

I think Freddie came away with the idea that (MY said) snobbery itself was now losing readership, which I don't think was the point of the post. (as above... "It's equally wrong, though, to blame Ron Charles for turning off throngs of potential readers, as MY did yesterday.")

I think no fewer people will "be readers" than if Charles had written nothing at all, and simply spend that day fishing instead. I think a good critic would actually spark interest, simply by making intelligent points about a book, even critical ones. And, I think that was the whole original point.

I just never really understood where the other conclusion came from.

Posted by Brad L | July 18, 2007 5:08 PM

The literati? Can you imagine a less powerful, less influential group?

Good. That's just what we want you to think. But entre nous, there's a reason we rhyme with "Illuminati."

Posted by Michael Bérubé | July 18, 2007 5:21 PM

Oh, so to "situate the books in some kind of context vis-a-vis the much larger cultural sweep of the novel" is only acceptable if you like both the cultural sweep and the books?

Wait, when did I say "the much larger cultural sweep of the novel" is acceptable literary critique of you like the sweep or book?

By definition, talking about cultural sweep is no longer engaging in criticism of the work itself. I'm not saying that cultural criticism is not "acceptable," I'm saying it's not useful generally, and not interesting (though ironic) in this case particularly.

I think most talk of cultural sweep is mindless, point-and-stare drivel: "Hey, look at the long lines camped out for Star Wars!" and most lamentations of cultural slippage tend to make their authors look petulant or worse. Cleverness can help soothe the edge of this sort of writing, but even the successes (e.g. Klosterman) come off as pretty self-absorbed.

The irony here, of course, is that Ron Charles is a senior editor of The Post's Book World section, which means he is probably more qualified to write that actual literary critique of the work he skipped rather than the cultural critique that he decided to pen; and that a good literary critique might actually help to counter the trend he bemoans.

Posted by Brad L | July 18, 2007 5:23 PM

"situate the books in some kind of context vis-a-vis the much larger cultural sweep of the novel"

Ok, on re-reading the quote in its original context, I'm here to admit: I'm not sure I understand what Matt means. I had glossed over this sentence as particularly babble-sounding in the midst of a pretty good overall point.

[I thought I knew what you meant, and were referring to the Charles article as an attempt to put the Potter phenomena in a larger cultural context (as this is what Charles tries to do).]

Perhaps by "cultural sweep of the book" MY meant that the critic was supposed to relate the world constructed by the book with our world, in much the same way the commenters are discussing how accurately it reflects British private school anxst or suggests parallels to current political strife. These would all be a better approach, really, than whining about kids today and all that rap music and when I was growing up we read real books..., which is how the Charles piece reads.

If not, if MY meant that someone should be taking the opportunity to write a good story about long lines at the book store and release parties, I'd disagree with that (although that doesn't really fit with the rest of the post).

It's good work to compare the book to other books. It's good to compare it to our world at large, too. But without actually somehow engaging the work itself, Charles removes himself from literary critique at all.

Posted by Brad L | July 18, 2007 5:52 PM

Wait, when did I say "the much larger cultural sweep of the novel" is acceptable literary critique of you like the sweep or book?

By definition, talking about cultural sweep is no longer engaging in criticism of the work itself.

Sorry for the confusion, the quote came from Matt's earlier post on Ron Charles. Your views on larger cultural sweep are apparently different from Matt's, and my views are different from both of yours in our wonderful world of diversity.

Posted by Consumatopia | July 18, 2007 5:56 PM

http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-which-i-explain-harry-potter-for.html

Posted by Larry M | July 18, 2007 5:58 PM

Your views on larger cultural sweep are apparently different from Matt's, and my views are different from both of yours in our wonderful world of diversity.

So, just to follow... you think the impact of a work on our culture is a good basis for critique of the work itself?

Hmm... there's actually something to that, at least as much as a)you regard the work as propaganda or b)feel that art has an agenda (or should), and on some level be aware of its own impact. Michael Moore, everyone's favorite propagandist, can probably be judged on his success or failure at moving the cultural needle.

Fun to think about.

Posted by Brad L | July 18, 2007 6:10 PM

I'm sorry, I didn't see your earlier post before I posted. I admit the line is ambiguous--I thought he meant cultural sweep of The Novel, i.e. how it fits into the grand scheme of long-form narrative constructions created by humans. In which case "it totally takes a poop on the grand scheme of long-form narrative constructions created by humans!" should be a perfectly valid point of view. As to why that's interesting, not that I'm totally in love with the Ron Charles piece, but I tend to find meta-information about cultural works interesting. When works reach a certain level of popularity, this meta-information becomes interesting whether or not you like the original work.

If not, if MY meant that someone should be taking the opportunity to write a good story about long lines at the book store and release parties

Wait, do you really think it's useless to write a story about lines at the book store and release parties? Even a positive one?

Posted by Consumatopia | July 18, 2007 6:13 PM

Okay, I'm always one behind you now...

So, just to follow... you think the impact of a work on our culture is a good basis for critique of the work itself?

That wasn't what I was saying, but I do think that.

I was saying that I think it's reasonable thing for a critic to talk about, not necessarily that it counts as a "critique". In Ron Charles's case, it clearly wasn't a critique of Harry Potter as such, but I'm not sure that it sold itself as such.

But now that you've given me the rope, I feel free to hang myself--I *do* feel that it would be a good basis for critique of the work itself--on purely aesthetic, non-utilitarian/non-consequentialist grounds. Why shouldn't we evaluate the meta-story of how a novel is conceived, written, marketed, purchased and read on aesthetic terms just as we do the story itself? If you walk into an modern art museum, you'll see many works of art that focus completely on the meta-story (thus the old "my five year-old could do that!" lament). Why shouldn't we look at how our cultural works harmonize with the larger melody of society?

Posted by Consumatopia | July 18, 2007 6:35 PM

Asynchronous conversation rules!

I thought he meant cultural sweep of The Novel, i.e. how it fits into the grand scheme of long-form narrative constructions created by humans. In which case "it totally takes a poop on the grand scheme of long-form narrative constructions created by humans!" should be a perfectly valid point of view

Relating this novel to other novels in some context is still comparing them to other novels. So, if you think there has been some trend in novel-writing that this exhibits, that would absolutely be fair game. But you have to actually do the work, and do the comparing bit. If by "poops on" you mean just fails as a work (is completely worthless), there is nothing wrong with that. But as we were all taught in pre-cal, show your work. Charles just takes it as Obvious Truth that the work is poor, and therefore casts judgement on its readers.

Wait, do you really think it's useless to write a story about lines at the book store and release parties? Even a positive one?

I knew I wrote that imprecisely, but I couldn't bring myself to post a third time in a row. I meant that it is useless as literary criticism. It may be interesting as cultural criticism, but it'd have to be written pretty well.

In Ron Charles's case, it clearly wasn't a critique of Harry Potter as such, but I'm not sure that it sold itself as such.

It didn't... it really was a culture piece. But I think the initial irony of a book reviewer lamenting the sad state of reading, while not actually bothering to improve the situation, stands. If the water is rising, you start bailing, right? Of course, to think this, you do have to think a critic can spark interest. I think a good one can, so this works for me.

Why shouldn't we evaluate the meta-story of how a novel is conceived, written, marketed, purchased and read on aesthetic terms just as we do the story itself?

The story of how things are conceived, produced, and sold is immensely interesting, I think. It gets tricky when that discussion becomes part of the evaluation of the product itself. Do we hold it against Shrek 3 or The Simpsons that they are essentially marketing vehicles with movies attached? Does the actual campaign make the movies themselves more or less compelling? (My instinct is no, although it does generate a healthy amount of skepticism about their quality before the movie is viewed.)

Posted by Brad L | July 18, 2007 7:05 PM

Look, the sad fact is that a lot of this could have been avoided had I not been so belligerent in my manner in that original post yesterday (oh so long ago, it seems.) I also probably could have nipped this all in the bud had I apologized. But that's hard to do in the message board format, which pretty much distills human communication to its worst elements.

The fact is that my job is emotionally draining, and I was in a particularly rotten mood yesterday. But that's no excuse, it doesn't change what I said. Saying that yesterday would have been at worst just a flimsy excuse and at best an appeal to emotion. And like I said, it's hard in that context to apologize.

Having said all that, the content of my complaints against MY aren't really any different, although I'll have to beg his forgiveness for my attitude. I do think that he was kind of douchey, and I still don't agree with what he said. But, look, mea culpa for my bad manners.

And it's very nice to have you here, Dr. Berube. Let me say that I hope someday to be a part of the literati, or at least hanging on to the edges. Second year of grad starts in a month.

Posted by Freddie | July 18, 2007 7:10 PM

Do we hold it against Shrek 3 or The Simpsons that they are essentially marketing vehicles with movies attached?

Well, to analogize to music, we can evaluate a song by listening to a recording of it, watching a performance of it, or dancing to it. I might enjoy a recording that's crafted on computers synthetically, but I might not want to actually watch this process. That doesn't make it a bad song, but it doesn't mean that other people are crazy for finding the live performances of other bands more interesting.

Creating movies is such a massively collaborative and financially complicated act that looking at how the sausage is made is less likely to be rewarding. Book critics, concert goers, and museum patrons all have a long history of appreciating works in part for the way they were created.

Of course, I only mentioned creation as part of the meta-story incidentally--the story of Rowling creating Harry Potter is reasonably compelling. I will admit that Creation is the easiest part of the meta-story to defend the relevance of.

Posted by Consumatopia | July 18, 2007 7:42 PM

Tom Brown's Schooldays?

My guess is that Rowling grew up reading Enid Blyton, where boarding schools are a common setting. It's 'Wizarding At Malory Towers'.

What's interesting is that there's no real kid-lit tradition of boarding schools in the US, and that most US critics (or general readers) aren't aware of that swathe of British kid-lit before Dahl.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 18, 2007 8:14 PM

Jesus H. F****** Christ on a Popsicle Stick. Is it really the case that we can get 70 posts into this thread and Delicious Pundit is the only one who manages to point out that Tom Brown's Schooldays introduced the world to the greatest forgotten hero of Victorian Britain? Is it truly the case that Mr. Paget Morrison's discovery of his ancestor's memoirs, and the heroic efforts of George MacDonald Fraser to bring them to light, have gone entirely unnoticed?

Let me know when Lord Valdemort's memoirs are discovered, and we have a chance to see the other side of the story. Until then, J.K. Rowling's slanders and libels have no place in the literary canon.

Posted by J. Michael Neal | July 19, 2007 12:49 AM

rk: "I think what Yglesias thinks come off as anti-elitist posts here, are more on the anti-intellectual side of things.

He's kind of like Glenn Reynolds and all those folks, who cry and whine when they don't like what scientists have to say about global warming. They skip the intellectual part and proceed right into the personal invective."

The problem with this analogy is that climate science (and the hard sciences in general) is objective. Either the world is getting warmer or it isn't; if so, either human activity is contributing to this or not. There is an objective reality out there to compare our hypotheses to. What we think, feel, or believe is irrelevant to this process.

On the other hand, tastes in literature are inherently subjective. I know the English Lit snobs would like us to think that because they do this for a living, their tastes are superior to those of the masses. But I see no real evidence for that. They themselves produce nothing worth reading, and are manifestly unable to recognize actual greatness until long after its author is dead and buried. (Were Dickens, Twain, and Dumas recognized by the literati of their own eras?) It seems to me to be a bizarre and worthless social game.

Nowhere do I see any of these critics attacking the pure entertainment value of the Potter books, which is as I understand why (older) people read them. They simply assess the books' literary worth which is little.

Again, the literary snobs simply aren't qualified to make that judgment now. Only time will tell for sure. Which calls into question the value of the whole enterprise.

If a book is designed to be entertaining and is indeed entertaining to millions of people, by what objective standard can you claim that its "literary worth" is "little"? You seem to think there is some objective way of measuring that, and I'm just not seeing it. What you really mean is that it doesn't fit your own paradigm of what "good literature should be."

Seeing some 26 year old political blogger railing against literary critics who, as he said in comments yesterday, "make themselves come across as horribly unpleasant people whom one would never want to meet or speak to, and whose primary interest in books is as an adjunct to the vicious hatred of human beings" is a little pathetic and a little strange.

Most English Lit snobs are horribly unpleasant people whom one would never want to meet or speak to. They are life's losers, people who think they are smarter and better than everyone else but who weren't even smart enough to structure their field so that it could provide its members with a decent living.

Posted by Josh G. | July 19, 2007 1:13 AM

Exactly! It's the most interesting thing about Harry Potter! Of course, Harry Potter would be vastly improved with generous helpings of corporal punishment, fagging and illicit homosexual couplings. Rowling manages to leave these most interesting aspects of English public schools out of the picture entirely. Here's hoping the new book at least starts with Harry being severely beaten by the 12 form.

Posted by Jake | July 19, 2007 2:07 AM

Sigh.

I know the English Lit snobs would like us to think that because they do this for a living, their tastes are superior to those of the masses.

I'm in a PhD program. I grew up on a college campus. The "English lit snobs" are overwhelmingly generous, gregarious and engaging people who love to talk, read and write about books. Your absurd generalizations are just ad hominems, and about a heterogenous group that is wildly divergent.

They themselves produce nothing worth reading,
If you are interested in reading and literature, they in fact produce many things that are incredibly interesting and, yes, sometimes entertaining. The fact that it is analysis and not creative writing opens them up to your moronic attacks. But then, the vast majority of the written word is analysis. For example, this blog post, and your comment.

and are manifestly unable to recognize actual greatness until long after its author is dead and buried.

This is simply inaccurate. The myth that literary genius is unrecognized in its own time simply does not hold up. There are some who slip through the cracks. But if you were to open up the Norton anthology and looked at each artist in succession you'd find that the vast majority of them were successful and recognized in their own time.

(Were Dickens, Twain, and Dumas recognized by the literati of their own eras?)

I'm not sure you could have picked three worse examples to prove your own point. All three of these authors were celebrated in their time. The idea that they were only considered "low culture" popular novelists is, again, a myth. You know who could have cleared that up for you? A "lit snob".

Again, the literary snobs simply aren't qualified to make that judgment now. Only time will tell for sure. Which calls into question the value of the whole enterprise.

In the sense that assigning value to any piece of art is, yes, subjective, then no one is qualified to make any such judgements ever. Your "only time will tell" is nonsensical; either mere humans are capable of rendering literary judgement, or their not. There's no magical turning point where suddenly the opinions of "literary snobs" becomes codified into something more real. The enterprise, by the way, has value if you believe that books are worthwhile, that they have real value, and that that value benefits from analysis, explication and debate. The enterprise is only useless if you don't believe literature has value. And then who's the snob?

If a book is designed to be entertaining and is indeed entertaining to millions of people, by what objective standard can you claim that its "literary worth" is "little"?

An appeal to the masses, I'm afraid, isn't very compelling. Millions of people dug the Backstreet Boys. Millions of people like Avril Lavigne. Millions of people like According to Jim. Surely, you aren't really ignorant to the difference between a value judgement of entertainment and a value judgement of artistic value. You could argue that that's an unreal dynamic; but it's hardly the thought of "literary snobs" that we think that way (and have thought that way since the ancient Greeks.)

You seem to think there is some objective way of measuring that, and I'm just not seeing it.

No. The "literary snobs" do, however, believe that there can be formed a general consensus of interest-- always relative, always subjective, always tenuous and changing, but real, and valuable. And within that consensus they find a common level of interest in various works, which happens to precisely mirror what people want to write about. Yes, it's true, theres no purely objective way in which we can say that Bleak House is a superior work to The Woman in White. And yet Dickens is still interesting to people, his work demands new scholarship over a century after his death-- and Wilkie Collins is a curio.

What you really mean is that it doesn't fit your own paradigm of what "good literature should be."

By what other possible method do you suggest they evaluate the value of a book? Isn't that true of absolutely any and all critical evaluation? Doesn't music you don't like not fit your own paradigm of what good music should be? There's something contradictory and deeply weird going on here. First you attack literary analysis because it doesn't have objectivity. Then you criticize critics for only applying their own subjectivity to an analysis.

Most English Lit snobs are horribly unpleasant people whom one would never want to meet or speak to. They are life's losers, people who think they are smarter and better than everyone else but who weren't even smart enough to structure their field so that it could provide its members with a decent living.

Sweeping generalizations in the form of an ad hominem, I'm afraid, don't move most people. The question I would have to ask is, how many "literary snobs" have you met? How many have had you over for dinner? How many have you talked to, reasoned with, debated with? How many have you shared a love of literature with? I would personally find that people who are passionate about literature and its analysis wouldn't really fit my definition of "life's losers"-- I think I would probably go with criminals and drug addicts. But fine, have it your way. Based on little to no personal experience, and without any evidence beyond "They don't make a lot of money", feel free to condemn all these people for their crime of loving reading.

You should probably know, though, that most "literary snobs" love Harry Potter.

Posted by Freddie | July 19, 2007 8:32 AM

Josh G.,

"Literary worth" for many is different from market value and appeal. Perhaps it is not for you, and that is fine enough, but criticism begins with certain value judgments, standards, and qualifications. I'm not sure why this is to be deplored or to be denounced are mere 'snobbery.' Beyond the dubiousness of your literary-historical arguments (see the obvious blunder of your Twain and Dickens reference), you seem to conflate value with money - for example, in valuing the profession of teaching, it seems, very little because teachers don't make what you consider a 'decent living.' Again, fair enough, if this is your measure, but don't expect people to give such thinking much time or light of day when it comes to matters of criticism: what wines, books, songs, artworks, etc. we prefer and come to matter most.

One wonders how much you make a year and whether or not you are worth much as a human being?

The real question is, why do you care about this debate? Why post here if not for some claim as to worth?

The one thing, though, that you do have that perhaps the rest of us do not, is that you seem to personally 'know' MOST literary critics, which maybe lends you more credibility if it is indeed true.

I surely cannot claim such a thing.

Stick to things you have some remote knowledge about.

Milton

Posted by Milton | July 21, 2007 4:54 PM