The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0969 Monday, 8 April 2002
Date: Friday, 5 Apr 2002 19:11:47 +0100
Subject: 13.0955 Re: Shakespeare Burned with Harry Potter
Comment: Re: SHK 13.0955 Re: Shakespeare Burned with Harry Potter
In objecting to my critique of the Harry Potter film Alan J. Sanders
brings up a very important point when defining the differences between
Shakespeare and most of the rest - as well as the darling of the
chattering class, J K Rowling. Let me get this straight. Alan is
saying that Shakespeare is great literature and Rowling is not - so let
the kids have the rubbish? He probably does not, but it is almost
inferred. What exactly do we mean by "something to spur the minds of
the college-aged student or astute citizens of higher learning." What
exactly is that? Spur the mind from what to what? Why should children be
denied the opportunity to have their minds "spurred" in a similar
fashion? In short why is Shakespeare better than the rest?
Far be it for me to disagree with the excellent and talented Ms Masson
but I will decline her suggestion to read Rowling's little collection.
I read in real time - I suspect slight dyslexia - so it would take me
about 2 years!
To Kathleen Breen I would riposte that a film declaring itself to be a
free adaptation of Shakespeare's sonnets could hardly be accused of
surreptitious derivation. And Kathleen calling me a snob again brings
me back to my first point which is - what is real the difference between
quality, the mediocre and rubbish?
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.