Harry Potter within the context of "classic" literature

turgon

The place of Harry Potter in literature, long term, is one that interests me. Consider The Chronicles of Narnia: these are very good fantasy (slightly children's) books, full of imagination and thoroughly enjoyable. Many would consider them classics. Also The Hobbit by Tolkien is considered even more of a classic, and it is easy to see why (Im a big Tolkien fan).

So, is the Harry Potter series a "classic" in terms of children fantasy literature, and fantasy as a whole?

Of course many people are turned off by HP because the amount of success and wealth Rowling has accumulated. And of course I equally feel a slight annoyance that HP 1 outsells, say, Lord of the Flies. But let us try to be objective as we can.

In terms of comparison I would say both The Hobbit and Narnia are advanced of HP in terms of imagination, and I personally prefer both of these to HP. Reading HP too it is easy to see the inspiration Rowling takes from the former, as well as from The Lord of the Rings. But does she still deserve to be ranked with these, and in 100 years time will Penguin Classics be publishing the HP series?

994

I think the main character is far too weak, the whole point of a novel is that a character goes on a journey and develops because of it, but Harry actually regresses over the series, from being curious and active in the first book to having being dragged through the last by Hermione and authorial fiat. As for inspirations, it's actaully creepy how similar HP is to Tom Brown's Schooldays.

*Penbo*

I think it should be a classic. Loved every harry potter book and could read them over and over.

zenmonk

it got the young people excited about books again and alot more people into bookshops and has spawned a few ripoffs too all good.
As far as the books themselves - I only read some of the first book but found it juvenile and grating the movies were brutal but I'm a literary snob.

Denerick

I hated the first Harry Potter book, gave up halfway. Found it extremely dull and boring with no real internal dialogue or nuances. Very dull book.

Then again, it gets people reading again and into bookshops, so maybe it will be considered a classic. A lot of 'classics' were simply the mainstream novels of their day. Dickens and Scott were bestsellers, not cult heroes you could only find in dusty shelves in second hand bookshops.

Greyfox

Yes definitely, in my opinion it's the best book series ever written and their isn't a dull page in the first 3 books! It's had a huge impact on young people and brought so many people back into reading books. I also think it's a lot more appealing to adults then Narnia is.

In 50 years time it will be regarded as a classic, I think those who say otherwise are just been snobbish!

damselnat

Greyfox wrote: »

In 50 years time it will be regarded as a classic, I think those who say otherwise are just been snobbish!

+1
It's not technically brilliant, or anywhere near the best books ever written

But it's defined a generation, and that's the generation who, in fifty years, will consider HP a crucial part of their youth, and therefore a classic

I would argue, imo, that Dickens was technically accomplished, but lacked imagination. I would say the exact opposite about HP. Both, however, had an influential impact on their times. What makes one a classic above the other?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cailinardthair

i cant complain! i was the frist book i really read properly outside of school and not one of the ladybird ones!:D
harry potter made me want to read more and more! it brought to better books like the hobbit and the lord of the rings!
i know rowling made a mint from them but you have to give her credit some way! she has a got a whole generation of kids exceited about books again! and at the end of the day that whats counts!
yeah they be classics when i have kids i guess!!

godspal

I have read 5 out of the 7 Harry Potter books. (IMO i think the Prisoner of Azkajban was the best because it was the most emotionally involving.) However I would be appalled to see Harry Potter to become thought of in the same vein as Ulysesses, Naked Lunch, Moby Dick, Mrs Dalloway etc. While I love The Hobbit (having hated the over-drawn, dull Lord of the Rings series.) and I haven't read any of the Chronicles of Narnia, I feel that these books will be continued to be considered classics and Rowling will fall into the abyss of children's writers such as Enid Blyton did.

Why? Rowling moves the series very conviently (the most difficult of which to comprehend is the move from HP1 to HP2). She also as Harold Bloom points, never really moves away from the Victorian vision of class divided England. (The Weasleys in their patronising tumbled down house, the upper class being represented as eltists in people like Slythrin, and the middle class in Harry and most of Gryfindor being shown as the champions of stability and morality.) Her books could be compared to Great Expectations and Jane Eyre in their attempt to spark a worn down generation.

However if we contextualise Rowling, in the post-modern state of literature in which we exist in right now. The book does not represent any ideals or state of being in the 21st centrury, it is simply harking back to "simpler" times in a completely patronising manner.