Harry potter is a classic

>harry potter is a classic

Classic is just a marketing term. The Classics is something else entirely.

Anything elevated to that level of popularity is basically democratized to "classic" status. Theres plenty of classic pop culture that's shit.

The most prominent example being Dostoevsky.

Name a book written before 1900 that's not a classic.

Agenbyte Of Inwit

My diary.

Origin of the species

Turgueniev, please leave

Just go on forgotten books, you'll see literally thousands.

Irene Iddesleigh

That author who wrote that book that began with "it was a dark and stormy night", he was a Victorian and none of his books are even read now except by like 3 historians who specialize in Victorian studies. I mean, he was basically the James Patterson or JK Rowling of his day.

Some "pop" authors do survive if they have some underlying merit despite being written towards a mass readership. Some are even among the best of all time. Tolstoy, Dumas, Dostoevsky, Conrad... and being absolutely truthful, Cervantes and Shakespeare.

There are many classic editions of that.

It is

What's wrong with defining Harry Potter as classic children's literature? It's infinitely more nuanced than the Wizard of Oz

>harry potter ripped off lord of the rings!
>have you read lord of the rings?
>n-no

I own one called the Black Rose. Pretty boring.

>Harry Potter is universal because it's about good fighting evil

the bible

i very much enjoy harry potter.