Why are the Classics... Kind of Boring?

Remove all ads!

More than once I ran across other students who were convinced that that was all Eliot was really doing. I don't think I found a writer who was met with more hostility by lit students than Eliot, and in particular TWL itself. Hence the reason I was cautious.

Not familiar to me. But I will look at him.

That we agree that it is a "fact" is important because the topic is about what contitutes a classic and who determines what is serious literature. How important "literary analysis" is to that process does seem important, at least to me.

Well, that some readers were concerned that there was a gay guy in HP led to a sort of literary analysis by some. It became a topic, even on this board. I've never read the books so I can't comment.

Bloom, and others within the Ivory Towers, have made this point repeatedly, and especially Bloom. Bloom, of course, is a snob, but in my opinion he has earned the right to be one, because he spends all day long pouring over books and doing the hard work of literary analysis, that even some book lovers, and students, despise having to do. That said, I still agree that although he can have "his say" it doesn't mean that he, or anyone else in the Tower, gets to decide for eveyone else what is a "classic." A very good case in point is Tolkien's LoTR.

This is a great point, IMO, and it goes right to the heart of LKD's point about the Ivory Tower. When I was a student there, I experienced the same thing as a result of my open admiration for Tolkien, and further, because I dared to admire CS Lewis. However, on balance though I think there is still a lot to be said for the PhDs, with some reservations.

http://www.tolkiencollector.com/shippeyb.htm

 

Very good points CtR. I agree that Eliot requires some genuine effort as he is quite a tough nut to crack but once you're there you can definitely appreciate his writing. He was also a great student of literature, Hamlet and His Problems is undeniably a major essay. To study Eliot's writing requires some maturity. I probably was too young when I was first "exposed" to Eliot as an undergraduate but as I learned more I was able to get a better appreciation and a better understanding of his work.

I couldn't agree more.

I guess it comes from the fact that Tolkien's colleagues looked down on his literary work as a waste of time and talent. They couldn't just dismiss the author of The Monsters and the Critics as a hack writer so they had to find other reasons to criticize him.

Still, it seems unlikely that Tolkien's writings would have become so influential if he had only written scholarly essays and papers. I don't think he had expected his stories to become so important to so many people (and sometimes so misconstrued -to the point of irony as The Lord of the Rings was banned in Soviet Russia because they saw it as an allegory of the Cold War while at the same time some would call the Shire a proto-industrial Commune or come up with a Marxist analysis of Bilbo the Hobbit; the Dwarves being working men and Smaug the Evil Capitalist). And I won't elaborate on Freudian comments regarding the Ring...

By the way, I studied the Lord of the Rings and actually wrote my Master's paper on the subject of Storytelling in the Lord of the Rings (I went for a more narratological approach).

I'm familiar with this book by Tom Shippey who is definitely a great Tolkien scholar. Another book of his, The Road to Middle-earth offers a rather comprehensive view of Tolkien's works of fiction.

Yet another book that I found really thought provoking (in a very different light) is The Individuated Hobbit: Jung, Tolkien, and the Archetypes of Middle-Earth by Timothy R. O'Neill. The author of this book relies on a Jungian perspective (mainly based on Archetypes) to study Tolkien's works. It's not a Freudian or a Lacanian approach and it doesn't go overboard with psychoanalysis (it uses psychoanalysis as a means to inform the text but doesn't use the text as a pretext to indulge in fancy comments for highbrow readers).

Readers who want a more approachable essay on Tolkien's writings should definitely read Patrick Curry's book Defending Middle-Earth, Tolkien: Myth and Modernity. It's a very good read and it makes a strong case for the relevance of Tolkien's books to our society.

 

Can't say I know enough about the topic to openly debate, but here's my :

Have to say I think that, while I can understand the usefulness of lit analysis, it only makes sense after a person has read and made the judgement on a book for themselves and should give way to it... art of comparison, if you will.

"Books build monuments in those that read them" - and each one of them can only be experienced by one person on the other side. An analyst is no different in this regard. Best to see something through your own head.

With that said, I must admit that dissecting the style, rhythm and motives of great books (classics if you will) can be a highly satisfying activity. (Or simply admiring wordsmithing.)

Hmm... or put differently, even if you respect the work a prominent analyst puts into dissecting a book, the only judgement that really matters is the one you make for yourself.

I find it somewhat silly to over-think the meaning of different elements in a book, while in doing so, forgetting that in the end, every book is written to tell a story as a whole.

Slightly off topic - I enjoyed Eco's books immensely and would put Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's Terre des Hommes (Land of Men, though I think Wind, Sand and Stars is also an English translation) as a classic. (I've read it under Of Earth and Men / Earth without Men).

Differently off topic:
I was fascinated with Silmarillion far more then LotR, mostly because the rules of worldbuilding were perfectly executed. Tolkien himself in an essay (On Fairy-Stories) marks the first one - that a world must have rules and stick to them (the green sun), and the second is, imo, embedded in his storytelling:
Description is inferior to narration. (a place called Kettle Gorge wouldn't be described like a really tumultuous part of river, but like a place "where Elkath lost seven ships before he had put chains to the cliffsides and dragged the rest across"). Each and every name and place must have a story. Believability is obtained through events.

 

One should always keep in mind that literature is first and foremost an art form and as such it has to be experienced before being analyzed. Still, a proper study can only enhance the appreciation one has for a work of art (and that applies to any medium).

That is exactly the point Tolkien made as an author. He actually wrote in his letters about a reader who wrote a letter to ask him questions regarding his books and wanted to write a literary analysis. Most authors don't relish the perspective of having their work dissected as that may totally destroy the "magic" at work within a novel and Tolkien was no exception. He actually replied by quoting Gandalf: "He who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

Of course, this shouldn't be seen as utterly denying the validity of literary analysis but instead it should be considered as pointing out the fact that the Aristotelian principle that propounds that "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" applies.

Or in other words, that one should not lose sight of the big picture when putting a novel under the microscope. A literary work can't be reduced to bits and pieces but has to be considered in its entirety (something reminiscent of Derrida's deconstructive approach).

The Gandalf quote is very apt as it sheds some light on Tolkien's idea regarding literary analysis. What Gandalf says to Saruman is that he has strayed from the path by breaking white into many colours. White being the sum of all colours, Saruman has not progressed but regressed. It is further stressed by the fact that Saruman is convinced that he shows clarity and has reached a better understanding which is clearly not the case as Gandalf clearly points out. The lesson here is to be wary of the temptation to become Sarumans ourselves while we question things and try to understand them because in becoming like Saruman we will most certainly lose sight of what is actually significant.

I'm sorry if I get carried away (and slightly off topic) with all the Gandalf talk but when it comes to the Lord of the Rings it's like opening a Pandora's Box and I always seem to find more things to say. Hopefully this post is not entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

EDIT: by the way, Lore it's nice to have mentioned Umberto Eco, he is both a great novelist and a great scholar. I find reading his books to be a most thrilling and thought provoking adventure. He has a gift for making very complex concepts approachable without resorting to oversimplification and we can learn many things from reading books like Kant and the Platypus.

Eco was asked what he thought about the Dan Brown fad since he had written a book, Foucault's Pendulum, which dealt with roughly the same themes fifteen years before the Da Vinci Code was published. Here is what he had to say about Dan Brown's book: "I was obliged to read it because everybody was asking me about it. My answer is that Dan Brown is one of the characters in my novel Foucault’s Pendulum, which is about people who start believing in occult stuff. [...] In Foucault’s Pendulum I wrote the grotesque representation of these kind of people. So Dan Brown is one of my creatures."

EDIT2: On the subject of Dan Brown's book, here is another quote, this time by Salman Rushdie: "Do not start me on 'The Da Vinci Code,' A novel so bad that it gives bad novels a bad name."

We were debating whether or not a person with a PhD. would be better suited than a regular Joe to give an informed opinion on a novel and I think that the opinion of a scholar who is also an author is even more relevant than a critic's and certainly more relevant than judging the literary merit of a novel by the number of books sold.

If we once again consider The Lord of the Rings, we have to acknowledge the fact that despite being one of the most popular books of all time, it has other merits besides its popularity (and even Harold Bloom who has edited books of Tolkien criticism can't dismiss Tolkien's relevance -something CtR pointed out a few posts ago).

 

I agree to some extent. Like you said, literature must be experienced before it it analyzed, but I'd add that a literature analysis is in a way just one experience of the text in question. Person with a PhD can definitely make a deeper analysis from a book, but is it or can it be any better than the average Joe's opinion "I liked it"? Basicly both are just subjective interpretations, or opinions if you will. The first one is probably soundly argumented and backed with more knowledge, but on the other hand the regural reader may catch the bigger picture like the author intended (given that the author intended anything other than making money) - and in a way make a "better" interpretation. Of course some might argue that there isn't good or bad interpretations to begin with.

I definitely agree that literature analysis is still useful, but it also has to break the text (and therefore the magic). I don't think it would even be possible to make a holistic study that would consider most possible angles and meanings : it had to take a certain viewpoint or focus on certain aspects. But like you said, a proper study can give the reader some new angles and thoughts to the book in question - and possibly to other ones as well.

Does this make Umberto Eco one of Robert Sheas creatures ?

 

There are bad interpretations. After all some people have written that Tolkien did glorify the North and basically understood his writings as being racist. Tolkien loathed Wagner and he wrote a scathing reply to the German publisher who had asked if he was of Aryan origin. That's an extreme example but novels can indeed be misinterpreted.

Any text, any sentence can lead to multiple interpretations and some have very little to do with what the author had in mind but they still inform the text (hence your remark that there isn't good or bad interpretations).

Regarding "subjectivity" I have to disagree with you. Every discourse is subjective but literary analysis relies on arguments and arguments must be objective to be of any value. That's what makes the difference between a simple "I like this book" and a critical analysis of the strengths and possible weaknesses of a literary piece. It doesn't mean that people who don't have a PhD. can't be articulate and provide some reasoning but it should be pointed out that people with a PhD. usually spend their lives doing that very thing.

I strongly believe that it is very important for any essayist or critic to try and remain objective. Subjectivity can't be ignored but from an academic perspective you won't go far if you can't make points that are substantiated by the text you're studying. Someone may disagree with your theory but if your analysis is well constructed it will be grounded on evidence taken from the text. Some people will tackle a literary work from a different perspective but the conclusions should not be entirely subjective. If it were the case then there would be no reason to engage into literary analysis.

If I were to write a paper on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, I would start with my subjective idea that it is quite bland and poorly written but I couldn't just stop there. If I wanted to make a convincing case I'd have to find evidence in the text to support my claims and make these as objective as possible in order for my paper to be of any interest. I could also claim that Harry Potter is a very subversive text for various reasons but I would have to elaborate for this claim to have any relevance. For instance I could stress that the division of humankind between Muggles, Half-bloods and magical people is tainted by some sort of racism. It would be hard to reject this idea since magic is clearly a racial element in the Harry Potter series and if we were to take it to an extreme the books could be seen as endorsing a fundamentally racist view of humankind that would set aside Übermenschen (magic users and especially Harry who is singled out by his genetic heritage) and Untermenschen (Muggles). I sincerely doubt that JK Rowling had such ideas in mind when she came up with her story and that would probably be an example of how her work could be misinterpreted.

The difficulty you're pointing at is the reason why literary analysis is both difficult and interesting. But everything should not be reduced to "possible angles and meanings." It's much more complex than that and goes beyond mere viewpoints (the word focus is a much better word in that context). To study anything you have to use different lenses and focus on different elements separately but at some point you have to bring them together and contrast them thus articulating your discourse if you don't want to reduce the work you're studying to a mere fragment.

The complexity of a literary piece can't be reduced because by essence it opens different paradigms as the words on the page necessarily lead to multiple interpretations that may be incompatible or irreconcilable but that are ultimately part and parcel of this text.

Tolkien stressed this in his introduction to the Lord of the Rings in which he dismissed allegory in favour of what he called applicability. He made it quite clear that allegory is by definition reductive as far as meaning is concerned.

 

Something else that might be mildly interesting to consider is the sophistication of the writer as opposed to the critic. I guess you could make a case that in order to be able to write well at all (proficiently, with proper grammar, etc.), you'd have to be fairly intelligent, but there still seem to be some creative people who would qualify as traditionally 'dumb.' You may not see this in literature much, but if you move over to music, for example, it becomes much more noticeable (and is a good reason not to probe your favorite artists' psyches for extra information too deeply, because you might be disappointed in what you find - or don't find - down in there, lol*). But then some say that creativity is just a different form of intelligence, so even if they can't describe or explain something well with words, they may still be 'smart.'

Basically what I'm getting at is that I suspect there are authors who would be dismayed by a rigorous literary analysis of their work, because they wouldn't know half of what the analyst was talking about, even though they created it.

~

*Letter to your favorite songwriter:

"Dear favorite songwriter, your song I Dreamt Of You moved me to tears, especially the line where you said what happened when you woke up. What did that mean - was it really her who was there?"

Answer:

"I don't know. It was like, you know, I just wrote it, you know what I mean?"

 

Nice post, Cara. I especially like this:

 

I agree that there are, if not bad, at least incorrect or misinterpretations. I think literature differs here from some other (mainly non-verbal) forms of art, which in my opinion are more open to personal interpretations. Poetry or song lyrics (like the case mentioned above) are somewhere on the borderline.

I totally agree that literary analysis, and other academic research for that matter, should be done as objectively as possible. The problem here is can a person, PhD. or the average person, be really objective? Arguments and the conclusion should be objective and well founded, but a researcher can be, unintentionally or not, selective or even to some extent blind. I majored in history, so I might be thinking the whole objectivity thing too much from that viewpoint, instead of literatures viewpoint. If we leave the possibility of true objectivity, I agree that trying to remain objective is very important.

This is an - poor - example of what I meant above (and I don't know how literature research is done in different countries): you had a subjective presumption that HP is poorly written, and then looked for evidence that support your claims. Even if you make your case as objective as possible, didn't you already have the answer before the research? Or would you alter your initial idea and therefore the conclusion if the evidence from the text would claim it incorrect?

I admit I articulated myself poorly previously: I didn't mean that while analysis must break the text in smaller pieces and focus to certain aspects, it should leave it like that. Definitely the information gathered and all the various aspects and fragments must be put to some kind of context if the study is to have any meaning.

 

Well, Kullervo, I've only dabbled in history but I think you'll agree with me that the main difference between literature and history is the source material and the field of study. In literature the text is everything.

There are similarities though. Just like historians have to be wary about the origins of the documents they study, we have to be careful about the type of narration (some narrators are not reliable and add their voices to a narrative).

I won't comment on the study of old works of literature for which the similarities can be even more important (take Shakespeare for instance, scholars had to work as historians -and question the authenticity of texts, look for other plays that may have been sources of inspirations or copies of plays and find out more about Elizabethan theatre and the staging of the plays that may have to do with the political background- to get a better understanding of the Bard's plays).

But the major difference is that as far as studying a particular text even if we may have to unearth a whole body of texts that are somehow relevant (as sources or intertextual references), in the end it's the text that we are studying that matters the most.

My "subjective presumption" didn't come out of the blue. It came from reading the text. When I read the first Harry Potter book I wanted to understand what all the fuss was about (I wasn't prejudiced, I was just curious and I didn't open the book trying to prove anything). I knew it was meant for children but I could tell right from the start that it was quite bland and that was not a supposition on my part and it wasn't a wild assumption either. Now if I wanted to prove this point I would have to go back to the text and point out some stylistic flaws.

Perhaps this is not the best example but this thread is about classics and telling good literature from the rest. I'm pretty sure that some people can find interesting to say about Harry Potter but style is not what makes it a good read (I've only read the first in the series so I can only hope it gets better in the numerous sequels).

My example would be better suited for a critic (someone assessing the literary value of a novel) rather than someone studying literature.

If I were to study fairy tale elements and the way they inform the text of the novel then it would be a more interesting endeavour (and I would actually learn something from studying Harry Potter in this light).

I think I see what you mean, but context is not enough (see the part of my previous post Chandos quoted as I wrote it in response to your earlier post).

 

Reading some historical background is almost critical to understanding some older texts. For instance, understanding the history of medieval institutions, like the church for instance, is critical for a full reading of Chaucer's Prologue of the CT. I know you are speaking more of the approach and methods used by historians, as opposed to literary studies, but I thought it intriguing that with the CT one has to reach beyond the text for a fuller understanding.

Likewise a text written in the MA has the potential to be a primary source within itself, even the CT, to some extent can be a source. I think an historian would have to ask the same questions in regards to Chaucer's reliability as a narrator - how much is artistic invention and how much reflects the reality of Chaucer's world in regards to his observations of the institutions of his own time.

If one adds the Decameron to the mix, how is Boccaccio treating the same MA institutions, particularly the church (since it would be something in common between Italy and England to an extent)? Does it illuminate the issues further, or does it just confuse the same issues?

Of course, all of this could be just passed off as "bawdy entertainment" for the aristocracy, but like much literarture it can be read on different levels, not just as easy and superficial entertainment.

You brought up the Bard and his history plays, and certainly he wrote [and performed] them because history plays were popular with his audience, but also a way to gain Royal favor if done at the right moment, in the right manner. But within a larger historical context, what does that say about Royal power during the English Renaissance and what restrictions, if any, did it place on Shakespeare's writing and staging? Was he clever enough to provide entertainment on one level, for fame, money and favor, and on others, comment on the shortcomings of Royal power during his own time, in a less obvious manner? It may be easier for us to look back in time and believe we know the answers, but how much are we projecting from our own, more democratic times? Somewhere there is an intersection between art and history that holds some clues, if not answers.

 

I agree: although the source material can be the same (a text or even a book), even the methods researching it can be to some extent the same, but still there's a difference. The meaning of source is different. I did my master's thesis on about 20 pages of text, but it wasn't text research as in literature. I minored in literature, so I faintly remember those different narration types .

Given that academic paradigms vary through time and place, I assume that contemporary literature research in France is text-centered as you have described. In Finland literature studies are probably slightly different as it includes pretty much any cultural product (still often described as a "text"): movies, cartoons or even games - I almost made a paper about metafiction in BG2.

I understand this and obviously a reader always has some sort of presumption or expectations before he reads any text the first time. I just wondered if "This is bland book" is a valid starting point for an analysis? If you read Harry Potter and found it dull (and still would make a paper out of it), shouldn't the starting point be more in a form of question "Is Harry Potter a bland book?" - and then search for evidence from the text, again as objectively possibly. Maybe it's the difference in the field of studies again. And for the record, I haven't read any Harry Potter novels.. I'm not sure should I be ashamed or not.

Something might be lost to translation here, but I'll try: I assume you meant that one must combine the different elements of the study and their separate-looking results to a cohesive whole, showing the meanings and the relations between different aspects in the text in question.

---------- Added 0 hours, 34 minutes and 20 seconds later... ----------

CT could be a historical source, but with a twist. It wouldn't necessarily be the best primary source for researching church institutions in the Middle Ages, but if one would want to research how Chaucer describes the mentioned institutions or the history of critizising church in literature in general, then CT would be a valid historical source. In the latter cases the amount of artistic invention isn't actually a huge factor, it's more important what was said or written than what actually was.

 

Yes, I see that now. Good point.

 

We're old school. France is the country of Cartesianism and it shows. We get to study movies in relation to books or plays in literature classes but it would freeze in hell before we'd study games in literature classes.

I had NO expectations as far as style was concerned when I first read it. I approached it with an open mind. I knew it was meant for kids which doesn't say much about a book.

Now why didn't I put it in the form of a question? That's because I could say that it was bland when I read it the first time.

I have a scientific background (studied sciences -mainly microbiology, chemistry, biochemisty but also industrial engineering- for two years before shifting to English) and I know how a scientist works. Let's put it in simple terms: you need to formulate a hypothesis and then check if your experiment confirms it.

That is besides the point here! Do you really think that I have to read the book again to come up to the same conclusion I reached the first time?

If I were running a lab, would I do the same experiment over and over again just for fun and giggles?

Please read the following quote because I don't feel like typing it again:

Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand. You probably have to put things in relation to get to the meaning. Is that what you mean?

 

I probably got caught in little things when I took the hypothetic Harry Potter paper as an example - I'm not questioning your scientific abilities in any way. I'm repeating myself here, but this is how I understood the case the first time (last time, I promise) :
1. You read HP and got the opinion that the book is poorly written and the style is bland - no problem here.
2. You started to make a analysis of the book, with the above as a hypothesis. When I asked about having a question (again, bad choice of words) I meant having a research problem. From my point of view "Harry Potter is poorly written" isn't a defined problem, since it doesn't have an actual problem (or question if you will) and it already contains the conclusion.
3. Searched for precise stylistic flaws, examples of bad writing (which might be abundant) and other evidence to back up your claims. Again, no problem, but I got the picture that you looked only for evidence that support your hypothesis. Doesn't this lead to situation where the initial hypothesis is always correct? What if you came across some parts of good writing on closer reading?

There might be a difference in academic fields: if this is a standard literature research process, then I have absolutely nothing to complain - I'm just accustomed to a different kind of research. I'll admit that the case of Harry Potter is a poor example, as you probably were right on its style, but I am thinking the research process more in a general level.

I have to disagree in some points. In my opinion, natural sciences and literature don't work the same way- maybe in a simplified model the process is basicly the same. A text isn't the same kind of object as a content of a beaker. Obviously the words remain same each time you read them, but the reading process and reception tend to be more or less different each time. I'm aware, however, that in some paradigms the reception of the text is seen inferior to the text itself. I'm not saying that you should read a book over and over again like a chemist repeats his experiment. I meant that you should probably read the text again, thinking what made me come to a certain conclusion in the first time.

You actually articulated what I meant (the quote in post by Chandos) so accurately that I won't try again .

 

Of course literature doesn't work like science but to a certain extent the same basic principle applies (especially if you aim to be objective).

It was just an example and I probably could have chosen a better example but I wanted one that could be linked to the original topic, i.e. that classics tend to be boring (which leads to the ideas that other books that are not considered to be classics are not boring or that, for a book to be a classic it has to be boring).

Anyway, I think that we agree but that we're not talking about the same thing.

I agree completely with you on that point.

When I typed : "If I were to write a paper on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" (and trust me I wish I didn't) I was thinking more as a literary critic assessing the worth of a novel.

That's why I posted earlier the following:

The problem above would be a valid starting point for a research on a topic like "fairy tale elements in HP" which you can turn into a question if you want (how do fairy tale elements inform the text of the novel? How do old fairy tales partake in the building up of a modern tale? But there could be many other questions that would have to be answered -which is why it may be preferable not to reduce a "problem" to a single question).

To be frank I didn't write a paper on HP (critical, academic or otherwise). So, could we move on?

 

I admit I got slightly sidetracked and thinked more of a researcher than a literary critic. Your example would be the correct way of writing a more non-formal paper.

This is most likely true in literature - trying to answer one single question could mean analyzing just fragments of the text. But please, let's not go there anymore. I thought of this more in the terms of the field I'm accustomed to.

I didn't even think you wrote that paper. Yes, let's move on .

 

The HP books are going to be "classics." I have not read them, so I can't comment on them. But:

More fare for Bloom, since I believe that's his tower (Yale).

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/03/25/cnnu.potter/index.html

 

Interesting link Chandos.

"Christian Theology and Harry Potter" -I'm pretty sure that a Yale professor can get a good lecture out of such a topic and it is not a bad idea to study it (although the religious perspective is not one that I personally find stimulating) but the popularity of the HP books may be cutting both ways. In a sense it will attract many students who are just there because it's HP... It may also be difficult to detach such a course from misconceptions and fanboyism.

I find this part interesting:

Now, I remember Tolkien pointing out some flaws in the Hobbit. He had learned a lot from writing Bilbo the Hobbit and didn't make the same mistakes when he wrote The Lord of the Rings. Getting rid of the insufferable narrator was one thing that Tolkien himself recognized as necessary but he also made the decision that the story should not be written with children in mind as an audience:

The Lord of the Rings was not written specifically for children and yet there is no denying that it can be enjoyed by both children and adults.

The greatest "children stories" are the ones that you can read as an adult and still appreciate. I can think about Saint-Exupéry's The Little Prince which gets even better as you mature and relate to the text in different ways as if the book had grown with you. In English there are only some stories that work for me like Oscar Wilde's stories and a few of Roald Dahl's stories (probably because I read them in French as a child and switching to English has introduced some sort of distance).

I'm not so sure about Harry Potter. I didn't understand its appeal for grown ups and I still don't get it. Does the interest stem from an attempt to recapture one's youth? I certainly don't get it. I haven't read the sequels, I can only hope that the writing got better with the sequels but I find that putting it on par with C.S. Lewis or Tolkien's books is very awkward (and I say awkward for lack of a better word).

 

Part of the popularity definitely came from the incredible hype and media attention surrounding all the Potter books, and later the movies. Few other books have enjoyed such amount of free advertising. Even people that normally didn't read books, or book reviews for that matter, seemed to know about Potter. I also think that the person of JK Rowling - her status as an unemployed single mom was always mentioned - might have given some extra appeal to some audiences. Not that I have anything against single moms.

When I was a kid in the late 80's, the major source of information about books was basicly libraries. Maybe I had some recommendations from friends but for the most part I searched for good books, like the Lord of the Rings, myself. Somehow I think that if Harry Potters or Da Vinci Code were published 10-15 years earlier, they wouldn't have reached the same popularity.

But these are just my non-literal opinions. Like I stated before, I havent read any Harry Potter book, as I always start to dislike something that is tremendously hyped (this almost lead me disliking Lord of the Rings when the movies came out). Like Caradhras, I can't understand what makes Harry Potters so appealing to adults. I also completely agree on that comparing HP to the Lord of the Rings as an equal isn't justified. The most annoying thing was couple years back when half of the world seemed to list Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings as their favorite books.

Maybe this summer I'll grab the bull by its horns and read all HPs AND Da Vinci code, with an open mind .