|
|
Gun o' the Pants (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} gun) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank,@ 2006-05-05 11:25:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
HP is serious business, part the 2893748th: lather, rinse and repeat
Potterwank that's not about race, feminism or shipping? What are the odds?! To celebrate this event, I thought I'd post this charming little thing. The crux: Battlestar Galactica is literature. Tolstoy is not.
a_t_rain posts an essay about HP characters and feminism at hp_essays. This isn't the wanky part: the essay is short, concise and a pretty damn good read.
The wank entereth whenm_ho appears on the scene, disagreeing by saying something about something. I dunno, how she's had no romantic experience or anything and thus the romance in HP relegates it to low-art pop culture. I really couldn't follow along:
From experience with my nerd friends, colleagues, and co-workers, most teenagers learn about themselves through philosophical study and ontological discourse, sparing very little or no thought to romantic love. Granted we're nerds, and most likely a minority, so the "most" is used relatively, however, to us the focus on romantic love does make the Harry Potter books read as pop culture rather than literature.
***
Oh man, Tolstoy. I was going to reduce him to pop culture when I remembered that not only do readers love him, but otherwise respected authors love him too.
I think his writing is superficial, and he may brush against humanist themes, but he doesn't pull the reader into a conversation with those themes. But now that I'm remembering him and some of his contemporaries (Flaubert, etc.), I'm wondering if I can exclude half the literative world from literature...
***
I'm assuming that no one's going to take time and effort to get lessons out of pop culture.
a_t_rain: I think it is safe to say that most of the 577 American colleges offering degree programs in cultural studies would disagree with this premise.
***
Anyone of any age in any circumstance can have romantic screwups, but those screwups aren't the speciously universal ones Rowling throws at us. And despite Hermione's failure, it seems that most people (again relative to me) learn through discussion and books rather than experience, and can be quite adept at romance. Even if they have to get the info from pop culture.
(As an aside, can anyone explain to me what the fuck 'speciously universal' means?)
***
People go WTF MATE ^^. Battlestar Galactica can be classed within the same literary echelons as Kafka, Borges, Gogol and Virginia Woolf. And all the while, I sit back with a cup of coffee and reconsider my major in English teaching.
Potterwank that's not about race, feminism or shipping? What are the odds?! To celebrate this event, I thought I'd post this charming little thing. The crux: Battlestar Galactica is literature. Tolstoy is not.
a_t_rain posts an essay about HP characters and feminism at hp_essays. This isn't the wanky part: the essay is short, concise and a pretty damn good read.The wank entereth when
m_ho appears on the scene, disagreeing by saying something about something. I dunno, how she's had no romantic experience or anything and thus the romance in HP relegates it to low-art pop culture. I really couldn't follow along: From experience with my nerd friends, colleagues, and co-workers, most teenagers learn about themselves through philosophical study and ontological discourse, sparing very little or no thought to romantic love. Granted we're nerds, and most likely a minority, so the "most" is used relatively, however, to us the focus on romantic love does make the Harry Potter books read as pop culture rather than literature.
***
Oh man, Tolstoy. I was going to reduce him to pop culture when I remembered that not only do readers love him, but otherwise respected authors love him too.
I think his writing is superficial, and he may brush against humanist themes, but he doesn't pull the reader into a conversation with those themes. But now that I'm remembering him and some of his contemporaries (Flaubert, etc.), I'm wondering if I can exclude half the literative world from literature...
***
I'm assuming that no one's going to take time and effort to get lessons out of pop culture.
a_t_rain: I think it is safe to say that most of the 577 American colleges offering degree programs in cultural studies would disagree with this premise.***
Anyone of any age in any circumstance can have romantic screwups, but those screwups aren't the speciously universal ones Rowling throws at us. And despite Hermione's failure, it seems that most people (again relative to me) learn through discussion and books rather than experience, and can be quite adept at romance. Even if they have to get the info from pop culture.
(As an aside, can anyone explain to me what the fuck 'speciously universal' means?)
***
People go WTF MATE ^^. Battlestar Galactica can be classed within the same literary echelons as Kafka, Borges, Gogol and Virginia Woolf. And all the while, I sit back with a cup of coffee and reconsider my major in English teaching.
Post a comment in response:
