What is literary writing?

A THING of beauty is a joy for ever:
Its loveliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness; but still will keep
A bower quiet for us, and a sleep
Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.


- John Keats, from Endymion

While I was reading the final Harry Potter book, The Deathly Hallows, I was having a conversation with Peter about what constitutes a “literary” novel. I had made an observation that, even though the Harry Potter books are extremely entertaining, they are not literary writing.

So I had to answer the question (both his and mine), What is literary writing?

My stumbling answers included:

• It has to be universally relevant.
• It has to be artistic.
• It has to have aesthetic value.
  

I then turned to the help of an essay I found online by John Oldcastle titled “What is literary writing?”

Among the answers he offers, does it have:

• artistic merit?
• creative genius?
• the expression of man’s noblest qualities?
• creation of aesthetic satisfaction?
• great themes of love, death, war and peace?
  

The Harry Potter books certainly address love, death, war and peace. And there are some very noble characters. There is also a certain genius in JK Rowling’s creativity.

But also in his essay, Oldcastle includes this quote by William Faulkner:

The aim of every artist is to arrest motion, which is life, by artificial means and hold it fixed, so that a hundred years later, when a stranger looks at it, it moves again since it is life. Since man is mortal, the only immortality possible for him is to leave something behind him that is immortal since it will always move. This is the artist's way of scribbling 'Kilroy was here' on the wall of the final and irrevocable oblivion through which he must someday pass.

So will the Harry Potter books stand the test of time? I think they might. But is it the writing itself that will, if they do?

What of all the people, and they are many, who enjoy the movies without ever reading the books?

This is where I think the answer lies. I think the world Rowling created is phenomenally intriguing. In fact, she launched a phenomenon. Who could have imagined our technology-crazed world, ages 6 to 80, reading a book, reading seven books, waiting in line at midnight to buy books?! Her genius was in creating a world that we can all relate to, a main character who is a nobody, who sleeps under the stairs, and becomes the greatest somebody, because of how he uses his circumstances.

But beyond the story, I do not feel an aesthetic satisfaction when I read her books, and that is the main reason I would not call them literary. I don’t read a passage, close the book and my eyes and savor the moment in words. Her words do not lift me to another plane.

The story? YES! The story is exciting, invigorating, thrilling! (Sorry for the redundancy.) I am delighted to envision each scene. And that is why I, personally, enjoy the movies more than the books. I believe the filmmaking craft of the movies, especially “The Prisoner of Azkaban” and “The Order of the Phoenix,” is brilliant. In fact, it goes beyond the craft of the books, in my opinion.

Are JK Rowling’s words going to stand the test of time? Or, is the phenomenon of the Harry Potter story going to do that? Or both?