[Previous entry: "Guilty Nerd Pleasures"] [Next entry: "Bush and the Courts"]

It appears that my flippant and terse remarks on the release of the new Harry Potter book have inspired some very thoughtful comments by jason. Not expecting any reaction whatsoever, perhaps I should clarify some minor "critical license" taken by my good friend and colleague.

The scope of my question is well-taken by jason., but my comments were not so much a critique of the current situation in terms of children's literature, but in terms of literary styles and trends in general.

jason. argues that the Potter books play a pragmatic role insofar as it encourages younger readers to read. As an educator, I fully believe that anything that encourages reading is good, and a similar phenomenon occurred twenty years ago (and has re-emerged) in terms of Tolkien and the "Lord of the Rings" series. But there are startling differences in the nature of the subject between Toilken and Rowling.

Jason writes: "Perhaps the most charitable position that may be taken on this very day, when the latest Harry Potter novel is due to be released at midnight, is that 'at least Americans are reading something.' That something needn’t be Joyce, who would likely go over the heads of many of our eight-year-olds, but as long as it encourages them to read more in a day than just a cereal box, I don’t think we should be as harsh to judge even the most widely appealing of small-'l' literature."

The simple fact is that dissertations are being written on the books. An upcoming "scholarly" conference at the University of Reading testifies to its acceptance as literature (and I use the term loosely). It is to these people that I ask: "where's the Joyce?"

I have no problem with Children's literature. I do have a problem that seniors majoring in Education can't write their way out of a dependent clause, let alone know what one is. Nor, for that matter, can they accomplish the simple task of reading and then explaining what they've read. Hume is "too hard" and philosophy is "too boring." If it doesn't concern boy-wizards or J. Lo., they turn off. And then they pick up "The Da Vinci Code," or "The Celestine Prophesy" or "Harry Potter" and feel that all novels are literature. Nothing could be further from the case.

My comments concern not the lack of literacy as such, but the lack of cultural literacy. When Rowling replaces Hemmingway or Dostoyevski, we all lose. Call me an elitist; I am. Call me pissed off at my last batch of student evaluations ( "more group work"?!?!?). But, next time you're in a mall bookstore, look at the philosophy section. It's like a formula: Nietzsche, Rand, Pirsig, and (maybe) a book or two on Buddhism. There is no substitute for the study of the classics, whether in philosophy, literature, economics or political theory. And those who don't read them because they're "too hard" or "too boring" always have Harry Potter and a few "Oprah List" books on their shelf.

Yes, jason., something must get them started. But "start" presupposes that one progresses. I agree that one can't start out reading "The Infinite Jest" or "Finnegans Wake"; my point is they never get that far. We do not live in a culture where it is encouraged to challenge oneself, explore one's horizons, to question the presuppositions learned at knee of parent and priest. It's now G. W. Bush's America, the culture of Fox News and reality TV, and this nation is taking a strong and obvious anti-intellectual turn. In this sense, my argument is that the Harry Potter phenomena is a symptom of a more rampant and terminal disease, for which I can discern no simple panacea.