What makes a great "literary" work?

As a preface, this was originally intended to be a quick Tumblr post rather than a full-fledged blog post. But I like to write, so it turned into both. Consequently, this post doesn't contain my usual number of random links and videos, but since it's a slightly more serious subject than my usual posts, I think that'll be ok. Anyway, sorry for the boring intro.

I’ve recently engaged in a conversation/discussion regarding whether or not comic books and Harry Potter can be classified as legitimate “literature.” Well, not necessarily that they aren’t literature, but that they are on similar levels of what qualifies as actual literature.

This catalyst of this discussion was my excitement over the recent release of the trailer for the Hugo Award-winning graphic novel “Watchmen.” I explained, via Twitter, that “Watchmen” is an unbelievably deep and well-written work that is without a doubt more on the level of a literary novel than a comic book. In fact, it’s the only graphic novel (which is basically a comic book novel if you aren’t aware) to make Time Magazine’s “100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present.”

From there, the Harry Potter series was brought into the discussion as being compared to “Watchmen” in terms of literary level. This brought me to my first question, which is “What qualifies something as ‘literature’ in today’s day and age?” Unfortunately, due to time and space constraints, I’ll focus on the Harry Potter side of the discussion. The comic books as literature argument will come on a day when I have more time to concentrate on my words. I’m very defensive about my comic books, you see.

Moving along. In my opinion, Rowling’s ability to write a literary work that appeals to people ranged from age 6 to age 56 shows that she has indeed crafted what could be considered one of the “great pieces of writing ever written" (the quote from the other side of the discussion being that she had not created one of the "great pieces of writing ever written").

One reason I consider it to be so is that, while it may be written toward a younger audience, people of all ages have no problem enjoying the novels. Obviously it’s no “Pride and Prejudice” or “Great Expectations,” but at the same time, those novels are more or less unreadable for anyone under the age of 17 or 18 (even then, readers at that age will unlikely understand the depth and themes of the works). On the other hand, readers of almost any age can find very deep and important issues underlying the wizardry, spells, and flying broomsticks. Harry Potter covers themes ranging from the basic battle of Good vs. Evil to racism, discrimination, class-distinction, and accepting death as an inevitable part of life.

Specifically, the argument was presented that the Harry Potter series is one that, in 20-30 years, will not be something that appeals to adults due to its adolescent themes. My response to this: The Lord of the Rings is a series that has captivated readers of all ages since 1954. And while the films clearly gave it a major revival in 2001, it had certainly managed to stand the test of time even before the films were released.

My question is, between the Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia (which were released around the same time) and the release of the Harry Potter series, which literary works have had that kind of influence and inspired (in people of all ages) a desire to pick up an old-fashioned book and spend weeks, days, or (in my case) hours reading it?

Also, the argument was presented that people in 20-30 years will have little interest in reading the Harry Potter novels. I would say, as a 22-year-old reader who very much enjoys fantasy and science-fiction (as well as non-sci-fi literary “classics” like “1984,” “Lord of the Flies,” and “Of Mice and Men”), that I did not read any Harry Potter books until I was 20 years old and I immediately read the Lord of the Rings trilogy for the first time following my completion of “The Half-Blood Prince.” Now, under the premise of people "not wanting to read something like that 20-30 years later," (paraphrased) I might be considered an anomaly. And I’m very ready to concede that it was also a result of the exciting Lord of the Rings movies (which, I will again concede, in Harry Potter’s case, will be quite dated in 20-30 years), but that doesn’t mean I didn’t thoroughly enjoy reading the Lord of the Rings trilogy 20-30 years after it was written and published.

Similarly, some people are absolutely obsessed (not necessarily in a good way) with the Harry Potter series. I find it hard to believe that these same people, in the next 10-15 years, won’t be sharing their passion with their own children. I know, from personal experience with my mother, that parents will be inclined to share things with their children in the hopes that said children will enjoy those things as well. The reason I love reading as much as I do is because my mom read “Where the Red Fern Grows” to me as a six-year-old. I cried at the end, and I realized how moving a made-up story written on paper could be. Then she told me that, when she was my age, she had the same reaction to the novel.

Regardless, I think Harry Potter will have a hold on society for a long time because, as opposed to other works written for children and teenagers, Harry Potter was written for everyone, kids and adults alike. To me, that’s what lifts it from a level of an elementary-level work of fiction to a truly great work of literature. New trends will certainly appear over time, but, much like the Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia have failed to fall into the abyss of societal neglect, I feel Harry Potter will manage to survive and thrive as the series’ adoring fans continue to love the novels and pass them down to generation after generation.

This coming from someone who didn’t read his first page of a Harry Potter book until he was 20-years-old. Of course, that may be the reason I see it as a literary work rather than a children’s book.