Despite great interest in finding out the Newbery medalists and honor books each January, I have not gotten around in the last 10 or so years to actually READ most of them. That's changing this summer--I'm catching up.
As I finish each book and post a review on Goodreads, I know my review is just one of millions. What can I say that hasn't already been said about such a widely-read book? For a plot summary, people can read the dust jacket. A generic "It's great, you should read it" would be waste of time. So, my goal in reviewing is to be brief and personal. How brief? Not always tweet-worthy, but 20 words is the target. How personal? Focusing on what I liked best, learned, or was led to think about. And just to except my own rule, I may still sum up the plot--if I feel I can do a better job than the dust jacket. Posts to follow!
Showing posts with label literary criticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label literary criticism. Show all posts
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Harry Potter, scholarly examinations of
Shouldn't Hermione be in Ravenclaw rather than Gryffindor?
Can American children understand a book that uses "foreign" language like Mum instead of Mom or trolley instead of cart?
Was it right for the New York Times to alter their Bestseller List parameters in order to cease HP's domination of the fiction list?
The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter: Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon, edited by Lana A. Whited is pithy stuff; I love examining/analyzing/beating to death anything I read or watch. And I definitely consider the Harry Potter series worthy of closer attention.
The article having the greatest number of quotes I want to memorize is "Crowning the King: Harry Potter and the Construction of Authority" by Farah Mendelsohn. Here is a juicy tidbit, condensed from page 171: "Hufflepuff: a house dedicated to the sidekick and creating the mentality of the faithful follower. ...it is perfectly acceptable to kill off Cedric Diggory...in order to provide our hero with a motive to hold out and allow Dumbledore to deliver his 'consolatory' speech. ...For those readers who know their Star Trek, members of the Hufflepuff house wear the red shirt." Amen to that.
"Hermione Granger and the Heritage of Gender" by Eliza T. Dresang points out that Rowling imposes stereotypical hysterical/fearful/whining behavior [on Hermione] and uses words like shriek, squeak, wail, squeal, and whimper, verbs never applied to male characters in the book. These descriptions are at odds with Hermione's basic role of "intellectual, problem solver" and seem to arise from stereotypes associated with her female gender rather than her own characterization.
Another great discussion assesses the translation of Harry and Co.'s British English into American, for the Scholastic editions. Verdict: Unnecessary. Thankfully, the amount of translating reduced dramatically with Goblet of Fire (You Say "Jelly," I Say "Jell-O"? Harry Potter and the Transfiguration of Language" by Philip Nel).
More food for thought was consumerism and conspicuous consumption; it is not limited to the Dursleys, says Elizabeth Teare in "Harry Potter and the Technology of Magic."
"Specters of Thatcherism" by Karin E. Westman examines power structures: pure-bloods vs. Muggleborns, house-elf controversy, prejudices against giants and werewolves, and what the persecution of Muggles at the Quidditch World Cup reveals about widespread wizardly attitudes.
Since these essays were published after Book 4 was published but prior to Book 5's release, I am on the lookout for other volumes which will take scholarly HP studies further. Perhaps I'll start with Jack Zipes' Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter, and I'll let you know what else I find.
Can American children understand a book that uses "foreign" language like Mum instead of Mom or trolley instead of cart?
Was it right for the New York Times to alter their Bestseller List parameters in order to cease HP's domination of the fiction list?
The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter: Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon, edited by Lana A. Whited is pithy stuff; I love examining/analyzing/beating to death anything I read or watch. And I definitely consider the Harry Potter series worthy of closer attention.
The article having the greatest number of quotes I want to memorize is "Crowning the King: Harry Potter and the Construction of Authority" by Farah Mendelsohn. Here is a juicy tidbit, condensed from page 171: "Hufflepuff: a house dedicated to the sidekick and creating the mentality of the faithful follower. ...it is perfectly acceptable to kill off Cedric Diggory...in order to provide our hero with a motive to hold out and allow Dumbledore to deliver his 'consolatory' speech. ...For those readers who know their Star Trek, members of the Hufflepuff house wear the red shirt." Amen to that.
"Hermione Granger and the Heritage of Gender" by Eliza T. Dresang points out that Rowling imposes stereotypical hysterical/fearful/whining behavior [on Hermione] and uses words like shriek, squeak, wail, squeal, and whimper, verbs never applied to male characters in the book. These descriptions are at odds with Hermione's basic role of "intellectual, problem solver" and seem to arise from stereotypes associated with her female gender rather than her own characterization.
Another great discussion assesses the translation of Harry and Co.'s British English into American, for the Scholastic editions. Verdict: Unnecessary. Thankfully, the amount of translating reduced dramatically with Goblet of Fire (You Say "Jelly," I Say "Jell-O"? Harry Potter and the Transfiguration of Language" by Philip Nel).
More food for thought was consumerism and conspicuous consumption; it is not limited to the Dursleys, says Elizabeth Teare in "Harry Potter and the Technology of Magic."
"Specters of Thatcherism" by Karin E. Westman examines power structures: pure-bloods vs. Muggleborns, house-elf controversy, prejudices against giants and werewolves, and what the persecution of Muggles at the Quidditch World Cup reveals about widespread wizardly attitudes.
Since these essays were published after Book 4 was published but prior to Book 5's release, I am on the lookout for other volumes which will take scholarly HP studies further. Perhaps I'll start with Jack Zipes' Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter, and I'll let you know what else I find.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
(Review of) a non-fiction book about a fiction book
Books about other books are right up my alley. I recently enjoyed J. R. R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth by Bradley J. Birzer.
Tolkien said The Lord of the Rings was not an allegory. In his foreword to the second edition, he asserted, "As for any inner meaning or 'message,' it has in the intention of the author none." This was said in opposition to interpretations of Lord of the Rings as representing World War II, and the One Ring being nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Tolkien did say that "his Catholic faith was the most important or most ‘significant’ influence on the writing of the work.”
Tolkien’s Sanctifying Myth examines many elements which Tolkien drew on, namely his Catholic faith; his view of the role of myth, that “myths express far greater truths than do historical facts or events”; his love of languages, especially Anglo-Saxon, Old Norse, Gothic, and Welsh; medieval literature and studies, such as Beowulf; and Christian humanist philosophy.
God is never directly mentioned in Lord of the Rings, but Christian themes and symbols pervade. As Tolkien was mentally immersed in the ideas of sin, redemption, kings, prophets, priests, sacraments, Creators, angels, fallen angels, and so on; he made those things intrinsically part of the story. The story does not repeat the gospel in code as an allegory would, but it is a re-expression of the true concepts of redemption, heroism, overcoming evil, the continual return of evil, and so on.
To me, Birzer’s most fascinating explanation is how Frodo is a priest “who carries the Ring—the cross of Christ, the sins of the world—into the heart of hell (Mordor).” This representation complements my own Christian belief that sin is the power by which Satan strives to enslave humanity. Sam Gamgee is the story’s protagonist—the saint, his character sanctified and defined by loyalty. The story ends with Sam’s return to life as it should be, becoming a husband and father in the Shire.
Birzer’s book explains a great deal in a short space, just 138 pages of commentary plus notes/index. I will want to refer to it again, and recommend it as “what to read next” when Lord of the Rings has been enjoyed.
Tolkien said The Lord of the Rings was not an allegory. In his foreword to the second edition, he asserted, "As for any inner meaning or 'message,' it has in the intention of the author none." This was said in opposition to interpretations of Lord of the Rings as representing World War II, and the One Ring being nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Tolkien did say that "his Catholic faith was the most important or most ‘significant’ influence on the writing of the work.”
Tolkien’s Sanctifying Myth examines many elements which Tolkien drew on, namely his Catholic faith; his view of the role of myth, that “myths express far greater truths than do historical facts or events”; his love of languages, especially Anglo-Saxon, Old Norse, Gothic, and Welsh; medieval literature and studies, such as Beowulf; and Christian humanist philosophy.
God is never directly mentioned in Lord of the Rings, but Christian themes and symbols pervade. As Tolkien was mentally immersed in the ideas of sin, redemption, kings, prophets, priests, sacraments, Creators, angels, fallen angels, and so on; he made those things intrinsically part of the story. The story does not repeat the gospel in code as an allegory would, but it is a re-expression of the true concepts of redemption, heroism, overcoming evil, the continual return of evil, and so on.
To me, Birzer’s most fascinating explanation is how Frodo is a priest “who carries the Ring—the cross of Christ, the sins of the world—into the heart of hell (Mordor).” This representation complements my own Christian belief that sin is the power by which Satan strives to enslave humanity. Sam Gamgee is the story’s protagonist—the saint, his character sanctified and defined by loyalty. The story ends with Sam’s return to life as it should be, becoming a husband and father in the Shire.
Birzer’s book explains a great deal in a short space, just 138 pages of commentary plus notes/index. I will want to refer to it again, and recommend it as “what to read next” when Lord of the Rings has been enjoyed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
