What's your degree in? Harry Potter? Uh ..?

To be honest, if you're going to cry about this then you may as well cry about all the modules on Shakespeare, Dickens, and any other specific author.

Sure, maybe Rowling isn't in the same league as the above, but the module is designed for "education studies" which is presumably targeted at those educating children, who the books are aimed at.
 
Nix said:
Do you actually know what the module is built around or are you just jumping the gun? It's a name for a module, that's all. What's at the heart of the module is what counts, and from reading around I gather it's a module designed to help understand contemporary society (something which in an Educational Studies degree is actually quite relevent). They're not going to have questions on the exam paper such as "How old was Harry when he got his wand touched?" or "How many rooms are there in Hogswart?"

It's a module using Harry Potter as a case-study and a window into the real world. Off the top of my head, they could for example be looking at and discussing why exactly the story is so universal and popular, which could include looking at psychology, collective culture and shared history. It could also be looking at universal aspects of all storytelling, etc. Then of course, we could also be looking at how the story was sold and marketed to the world and how exactly the world reacted to such dissemination. It in turn could then turn to look at the unanticipated fantasy tourism it's created and the new economies as a result. There's a lot of genuine complex issues and processes which can be explored.

Just because the module's got a stupid name, does not mean it's banal. It's a fancy name to grab cheap attention. An institution such as Durham is not going to have a module or a whole degree devoted to the ins and outs of the story of Harry Potter. It's easy marketing, that is all.
Click to expand...

Very well put!
 
Whilst I dislike Harry Potter, Nix is bang on. We use Shakespeare, Austen, Harper Lee, Wells, Miller, etc to discuss prejudices within society, and as much as it galls me, using Rowling is merely a contemporary source.
 
I agree.

The trouble is with arts is that it's so subjective, the lines are often grey. I don't particularly like reading Harry Potter, but then I don't enjoy reading any of the other classic authors mentioned by platypus. I studied several of Shakespeare's works at school, took them apart and all. One's from ages ago, one's from now. Just like years ago there were good authors, I'm sure there are some now. Whether Rowling is really the best of the modern age though I'm sure is up for debate. However most importantly it depends on what the book is used for. I'm sure for example there are courses that overtly decide for example Catcher in the Rye or Of Mice and Men etc. are most suitable for them.
 
Would it have been so shocking if the study was based on tom browns school days? The parrallels between this and harry potter are numerous but that wouldn't make a headline as that was written pre 1900.
 
Education Degree spun by the media as a 'Harry Potter Degree' for silly people to then moan that it's a 'Degree in Harry Potter' which is Mickey Mouse, devalues degrees and from a two bit University. *yawn*
 
vonhelmet said:
To be honest, if you're going to cry about this then you may as well cry about all the modules on Shakespeare, Dickens, and any other specific author.

Sure, maybe Rowling isn't in the same league as the above, but the module is designed for "education studies" which is presumably targeted at those educating children, who the books are aimed at.
Click to expand...

exactly what i was thinking !

Harry Potter is far more relevant to someone studying children's literature than a module on any of those.
 
I live in Durham term time, although I don't go to that Uni (I got in through clearing due to confusion in life :D so no picky picky although I could transfer there but na :D)

Anyway my past experience with people that go to Durham Uni...all of the people I have met are retarded, no really...retarded.

You know, the typical retard, it's a step further than that.

/Johnathan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom