Not That I've Actually Read Rowling

Harold Bloom, titan of literary criticism and Yale professor, on the first Harry Potter book. He wrote this for the Wall Street Journal in 2000; worth reading for the snottiness value, if nothing else. Excerpt:

Why read it? Presumably, if you cannot be persuaded to read anything better, Rowling will have to do. Is there any redeeming educational use to Rowling? Is there any to Stephen King? Why read, if what you read will not enrich mind or spirit or personality? . . . Perhaps Rowling appeals to millions of reader non-readers because they sense her wistful sincerity, and want to join her world, imaginary or not.

I don't know if Bloom is taking it for granted that people shouldn't read for non-enriching entertainment, or if he wants to argue that they shouldn't by willfully ignoring the entire concept. Either way, the rest of this article makes no sense to me since he doesn't tackle the idea head-on.

His main complaint about the actual writing is that it's cliched and unimaginative.

Meanwhile, in Vanity Fair this month there's a big feature on the Simpsons (apparently since there's some kind of relevant motion picture being released?) which is a fun read, especially where it covers the show's early development. There's also an interview with Conan O'Brien about his time as a Simpsons writer, back in the show's glory days of '94 or thereabouts.

I like this bit:

Jay Kogen: We thought we were really writing these really funny, smart, special shows that were chock-full of jokes every few seconds. And then someone showed us this study Fox had done: the No. 1 reason why people liked The Simpsons was "all the pretty colors" and they liked it when Homer hit his head. We were writing the show for ourselves--we always made it funny for ourselves--but who knows why America likes it. Maybe they like the pretty colors and when Homer hits his head, but I hope it's for more.

There is, of course, something from The Simpsons that comments on this.