The first book was published in my lifetime, there hasn't even been one entire generation to grow up reading it, much less save the books for their kids. There hasn't been anywhere near enough time for the series to establish itself as a classic.
It's a smash hit, not a "classic".
I'd compare it to the Varney the Vampyre series from 150 years ago. Everyone loved it, it was incredibly popular. And now almost no one knows the series ever existed.
2006-07-12 14:52:54 · 13 answers · asked by Z, unnecessary letter 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
It's hype.
Style over substance. A 10 year old book is not a classic, no matter how many times they say it is.
2006-07-12 14:56:39 · answer #1 · answered by ratboy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
harry potter is overated and overlypopular, now i will admit to having read the series and i found them entertaining, but by no means classics, sorry potterheads but harry will never ever be a classic. personally i just see it as waaaaayyy watered down "fantasy" thats simply built around a boring school setting and isnt really all that creative. bodom makes a very good point on how people dont kno the meaning of classic, it has to become established as a good book over several generations before it can be a classic. i think its just a fad that will go away in time.
2006-07-13 13:43:03 · answer #2 · answered by Hellion 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it's so popular right now people think it's going to stay that popular. But I think we shouldn't call it a classic now. We should wait to see if it really does stay that popular and then we can start calling it a classic when our grandkids read it.
And Harry Potter is actually a good series, why do you hate it so much?
2006-07-12 20:25:43 · answer #3 · answered by white_raven_wing 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, people just don't know what "classic" means. It makes me laugh when people say Harry Potter (or anything for that matter) is an "instant classic". I hear it a lot. It's an oxymoron, people!
A classic is something that, by definition, has stood the test of time. I like Harry Potter books a lot, but the first one came out, what, ten years ago?
2006-07-12 14:58:56 · answer #4 · answered by cay_damay 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a book that people believe will continue to be read by future generations. It's more a hope, than a reality. You never know what is going to last. HP has certainly had an unprecedented impact on the publishing world and the reading habits of young people. So maybe it will be read 100 years from now...
2006-07-12 16:40:30 · answer #5 · answered by booksmart 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wonder when the "Little House" books were first referred to as "classics." My aunt was little when they were coming out and she told me once the Harry Potter experience reminded her of their releases.
Harry Potter books certainly have the feel of something that's going to hold up over time. But you're right, they haven't yet.
2006-07-13 09:00:19 · answer #6 · answered by poohba 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that it is premature to label the Harry Potter series a "classic". The books, however, are very readable and appealing and have the right combination of ingredients to sustain their popularity.
2006-07-12 14:59:02 · answer #7 · answered by Susan H 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because harry potter is a really good book series and it will be a classic some day.
2006-07-12 20:21:19 · answer #8 · answered by jeangray26 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think they should refer to it as a classic. But I think that they mean that it is very popular. And all classics were popular at one time.
2006-07-12 15:03:57 · answer #9 · answered by Emily C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i love it, but would not call it a classic, i would call lord of the rinsg classic, or chronicles of narnia,harry potter is just a great book, but not a "classic".
2006-07-12 19:07:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋