... erm, stuff from the novels themselves. Like the fact that Hogwarts students don't get 'muggle' lessons and thus we have a magical world where at least one school is putting out students as equipped to deal with the muggle world as a 12 year old, and also their world has no economy. That's not personal opinion dude, that's called critical thinking.
Oh. I was hoping for something a bit broader. We're just going to accept the assertion that children's books that don't include comprehensive education and economic models are 'bad books'. I see.
@Lemex but if I'm reading popular fiction I couldn't give half a fig about what academics say. When I'm reading literary fiction or classics or something weighty, I put value in their academic views. When it comes to popular genre fiction it is irrelevant to me what they think in an academic context (though if they can step outside of that to provide a general, personal view, then fine).
Um, that's not what Lemex is saying, BayView. You can write a children's book and still make a world that makes sense. Just because its fantasy doesn't mean you can forgo all logic and common sense. The basic structure of the world's universe has to make some sense.
Other 'children's books' have a fully functioning and well-thought out world. Like Hobbit and Dahl. What makes Potter special? Or are you just defending your poor critical skills with an attempt at sarcasm?
Exactly. In any given story, the world in which its set has to make some sort of sense. If I were writing Harry Potter, the questions you've brought up is what I would've been thinking and answering well before I penned the first chapter. It's what is expected of an author as he/she builds the world the books will be set in. Regardless of the plot, regardless of how outlandish it may be, the world still has to have a cohesive structure that makes sense.
The thing is, these things usually happen in stages. The stage of fandom is over, and now Potter is increasingly becoming read for what it can say. Most readers, you are right, will not care what happens after the bus dies down, they go onto the next thing - and something like Potter becomes just something they have and keep for nostalgia sake. But when the reader surrenders the fad to the halls of academia, and Criticism - with a capital C, that's not criticism. What is fun is fun, but what is 'good' what is worthy of study is something else. I think Potter is bad, I'm prepared to say it's bad, but I don't know if it'll be seen as 'bad' or 'good' in 100 years. I actually hope it's forgotten about, but the decider is time. The passage of time is all that really matters, because that's the accumulation of everyone's tastes. Everyone's opinion is valuable, even though most people will only have one voice among many. Also, I think some people's opinions might not be worth quite as much as others. Being perfectly honest.
I haven't read Potter. The MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people who have read and enjoyed it apparently didn't have a problem with the lack of an economic system. And it's been a long time since I read Tolkien, but apparently he's not immune from logical inconsistencies, either? http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Mistakes_and_inconsistencies_in_Tolkien's_works To be clear, I don't think that makes Tolkien bad. I just don't think an insubstantial treatment of the world's economic system is enough to negate the enjoyment of millions and millions of people. I honestly think this is going to come down to me judging the quality of a book by totally different standards than you do. Right? I think books should be judged based on the enjoyment they provide; you seem to think (I don't want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong) that there is an inherent 'quality' to a book that can be discerned without any reference to its audience. (Although then I get a bit confused by the 'wait twenty years and see what people are saying' argument, so possibly I'm misunderstanding you.) But, assuming that I'm roughly correct, you thinking you can establish that a book is 'bad', according to my standard, by pointing out a logical inconsistency within the book is as silly as me thinking I could establish that a book is bad by your standard by showing you the sales numbers in Nicaragua. Does that make sense?
It has to? Apparently it doesn't. I mean, assuming that Harry Potter has these logical inconsistencies, then obviously they're possible. So what you're really saying, maybe, is that a book's world "still has to have a cohesive structure that makes sense" in order to... be enjoyed by you? ...to be considered a 'good' book, according to your standards? And I think that's fine, as long as you accept that millions of people have different standards and don't seem too concerned about whatever it is that you're objecting to.
Here I'll expose my inner snob a bit. Most people don't think about these things because they don't care. Just people people are lazy readers does not mean the problem isn't there to be seen. Note I said Hobbit, Lord of the Rings is a different book. Ever noticed the Dwarf runes in The Hobbit are different to those found in Lord of the Rings? The two books developed differently. They are also written at different times in the development of Middle Earth. Other things in that list has explanations, and some seem to refer to the film series without making the distinction clear. Well, yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. Writing style and characterization and story can be judged objectively I think. You might not agree, I don't really mind. When I read a novel, I'm careful in my appraisal of it, but if you just want to get the fun out of it then you shouldn't really take issue with my calling something good or bad. I like Stephen King, and no matter how many times people tell me he's bad, that's not going to change the fact I like reading him, because quite honestly I'm not that interested in taking Stephen King that seriously as a novelist. I like to read him as a story teller. I'm not sure it does, but I think I know what you mean.
Okay, I "shouldn't take issue" with you calling something good or bad. But you have clearly taken issue with people calling Harry Potter good, haven't you? I mean, you seem to have really dedicated yourself to cataloguing the problems with it. So, if I shouldn't take issue with you calling something good or bad, why are you so wrapped up in other people calling Harry Potter good?
Maybe we are defining "good" differently. To me, a book is good if it meets the purpose I have for it. If I want a beautifully written book that interests me and makes me think, I pick up literature. If it does those things, it is good. If I buy a piece of light genre fiction I want something entertaining while reading it, even if I forget about it an hour later. If the book does that, it's a good bit of popular fiction. Case in point, Lee Child's Reacher books. The plots are relatively simple, and sometimes preposterous. Reacher is a Mary Sue who is bigger, stronger, faster, and smarter than anyone else. I can read one through on a day off and then forget it and still have time to do other things. But I have fun with them while I'm reading them. They're good, as popular, light fiction.
They get to have their tastes, I get to have mine. I like a story where the world doesn't have gaping plot holes within its own structure, no matter how crazy and outlandish the story is. I could read a book about talking, flying lemurs in space and enjoy the hell out of it, so long as the book doesn't then break its own rules it very clearly established without any explanation to it. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that no one is allowed to enjoy a story that doesn't give a crap about its own rules. More power to them. I'm not looking for a book like Where The Red Fern Grows, I'm looking for books, no matter how light and entertaining (or outlandish) it is, that have an interesting plot and a well-structured world.
Because to me Stephen King is someone think is bad but I enjoy regardless. I only take issue with people who think it's good and expect me to see it as good. When people treat Harry Potter as high quality literature, something to 'get' then I take issue. I can critique King's novels, I could go on and on, but instead I just think of him as a guilty pleasure. We are, yeah. 'Good' is not the same thing as 'enjoyable'. What is 'good' in term of set rules is, I'll admit, something I find hard to formulate exactly. Exactly the same with what is 'bad'. In fact I find it much harder to say why I like something than why I don't like something. Something like Lee Child is 'good' in terms of fit for the audience who will buy it, fun romp, but I would argue it's not 'good' in the same way as Lord of the Flies. I know, I'm fully aware, I'll be seen as a snob for this. And it'll not be a wrong impression either I guess. Basically, the question is what has more impact, a Michael Bay film or an Alfred Hitchcock film? That to me is the difference. I like Michael Bay films, they are fun, but I don't care about them in the same way I care about a film like Psycho. Psycho has more about it than just the entertainment value.
If you read King intending to enjoy some more or less mindless entertainment, and you enjoy it, isn't it good? Saying it is bad because it's not Tolstoy seems to me to be missing the point. It's like saying a hammer is bad when you try to use it as a wrench and it doesn't work. No, it's good at being a hammer but sucks at being a wrench.
And that's all 100% fine with me. I never got into Harry Potter, either. (I honestly don't think I've read any of the books I seem to be defending on this thread). We all have different tastes, absolutely. I just challenge the idea of books being inherently good or bad. I'm with Steerpike, with a more functional approach. If the book does the job it's intended to do, it's a good book, by my standards.
I honestly think the "guilty" part of that is what I'm getting at. I think there's a movement to shame people for reading certain books, and I think it's tied in to this idea of some books being "bad" while others are "good". I don't think reading Stephen King should be a guilty pleasure. It can just be a pleasure. ETA: Because I've got to drag feminism into it eventually, don't I?... I think it's interesting how many of the 'allowable' guilty pleasure books are written by or aimed at men. King, Tom Clancy, James Patterson - they're not thought provoking, but they're manly, so they're fine. Twilight, Fifty Shades... written by women, aimed at women... anyone who enjoys reading THOSE books is clearly a child or an idiot.
True, and I felt this way reading chick lit books because I found one that I really liked. There really doesn't need to be any shame in reading books you enjoy. Like I said, people have different tastes, but as soon as someone starts forcing their own tastes onto someone else, then a precious line has been crossed.
Wow, you wrote that while I was adding my ETA to the post above, but there's a pretty close parallel there, right? We should feel guilty for reading light books aimed at women...
Well, the hammer cannot be a wrench. But Stephen King is creating a creative work. I do see your point, I hope you don't think I'm not, but I'm thinking the intention Stephen King has. He's in the position as a popular novelist to have many people reading high quality literature that can really make a difference to the way people think, and he writes entertainment. Sure it's fun, but what's the point in settling for just fun when you can have something a little better? I don't feel guilt in the sense of having stole from a shop, a guilty pleasure is something I like without being able to square it up with my usual taste.
I know, it's weird right? How dare we read light books aimed at the opposite gender of our own. A man gets to read chick lit books and a woman gets to read hardboiled crime novels, is what I say. Lemex, I'm afraid we'll have to disagree here buddy. Sometimes people just like a good book. Harry Potter is a decent enough book, it stands on its own. The only issues I have are the black and white morality of it and the illogic of the world itself. If I had any criticism on Twilight, it's the prose and the concept that needs tweaking. But other than that, I'm cool. If someone wants to read a romance between a bored girl and an undead vampire, then whatever floats their boat. If the prose weren't laughable and the concept tightened a little, I would've given it a read.
Not a huge fan of chick lit as a label. People usually mean romance, I guess. Romance is a fundamental aspect of the human condition, male or female.
