A Literary Mash-Up

Okay so a month ago, I talked about great literature, and I encouraged people to read a classic. While trying to decide which book to pick, finals happened. I got so slammed with projects and papers and my job that I was out of the reading game for a little while. Don't you worry, I did read something this past month. But when I moved back home, I had a thought cross my mind: What makes the classics classics? What kinds of books have been put out within my lifetime that would be considered good literature? So I decided to do a little experiment. I was going to compare my reading of something like Pride and Prejudice and something that came out in our lifetime: Harry Potter.

Before you fly off the handle about having the audacity to compare something so great as Pride and Prejudice with something so minimal as Harry Potter, I'd like to clarify. I know perfectly well that Jane Austen could outdo J.K. Rowling every day of her life. I was comparing how I read it. How did I feel while reading it? Does this book make me want to be a better person? What does it say about life? How can I implement the things that are said in this book in my own life? I thought Harry Potter would put up a fairly decent fight. And, let's face it: the wizarding world is a pretty amazing place. And I think the patronus charm is really cool. My patronus would take the form of an otter.

So after reading the first two (and part of the third), here's what I have come up with. I think that the Harry Potter books are wonderful. They, for certain, have some literary qualities. But they don't fit the criterion of a truly literary book. The plot makes the book. A plot-based book could never stand up to the characterization and symbolism and diction that a Jane Austen book has. Take Mr. Darcy, for example. Sure, there is plot in Jane Austen's book, but the character Mr. Darcy can stand by himself. People have written volumes about Mr. Darcy. Every girl wants a Mr. Darcy in their life. Not only did Austen build a great character in Mr. Darcy, a protagonist, but she also built the side characters, like Mr. and Mrs. Bennet, Mary (Lizzy's sister), Mr. Collins, etc. In my small opinion, the reason that Pride and Prejudice is literary is because Austen created characters and let their actions reflect their nature, thus creating plot. Let me reiterate: The characters created the plot by merely being themselves. The greatest pieces of the plot in that story are the unveiling of the true natures of two men: Mr. Darcy and Mr. Wickham. Characterization runs the plot in literary works.

Now let's take that to Harry Potter. Events just happen to Harry Potter and his friends. He receives an invisibility cloak, which enables him to sneak around the castle by night and discover secret passageways. Hagrid happens to let things slip to our three heroes more often than it should. Plot plot plot. And plot is exciting. It's just not literary.

But like I mentioned before, it does have literary characteristics. Dumbledore, for example, provides the best literary nourishment. He has all these great one liners that change your life forever. He embodies the stereotypical cute old man, yet demonstrates great strength of character when needed. That's why everyone loves Dumbledore! J.K. Rowling took the time to develop his character for the reader and gave him the role of "the wise one with all the answers." It is this redeeming quality that makes the Harry Potter books worthwhile. Dumbledore's words do make me want to change my life. They do something for my soul. They teach truth. So while I cannot say that the Harry Potter books are literary, I still stand behind them. And props to J.K. Rowling for getting millions of children all across America (and the world, for that matter) to pick up a book and read 700 pages.

So thanks J.K. Rowling, for creating a wonderful world of imagination for the youth.