Who's excited about J K Rowling's new book?

[YesNo]

Of all of Rowling’s characters, the most interesting are probably Harry himself, Dumbledore and Snape, all of whom are enmeshed psychologically. Snape is particularly a tragic and ambiguous figure, having despised Harry’s father when he was at school, and having loved his mother, and who was, like Harry, an outcast. Harry is always uncomfortable around him and never trusts him. It is not until Snape’s death that the truth of his actions is revealed. In this respect, he and Harry are more alike than they could ever have known.

Are they books for children or adults? According to Ernie Bond of Salisbury University: “Personally I would consider the whole series to be for "all ages."”


Snape is an amazing character.

I didn't start reading HP until after I saw all of the movies. In the last movie, I heard Harry ask Dumbledore, "Tell me one last thing. Is this real or has this been happening inside my head?" Then I heard Dumbledore's response, "Of course, it is happening in your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real." That's when the enchantment happened and I had to read at least that last book. I agree with Ernie Bond, there is more going on here than a children's story.

[JBI]

Harry Potter is a work worthy of being considered a classic of children’s literature. Some critics wishing to stack the odds in favor of arguments against Potter’s literary value attempt to employ ridiculous comparisons with works of other popular literary authors. However, the question isn't if Potter can match up with popular celebrated authors like Dickens, Roth, Chabon, Murakami, and their ilk. It is far-fetched to suggest any of these authors’ primary audience is children or even young adults. The real question is if Potter belongs in the same category as C. S. Lewis, Roald Dahl, Louis Lowry, L. Frank Baum, Kenneth Grahame, Judy Blume, and other respected children and young adult authors. Many critics who study Children’s Literature as their primary focus have already proposed Potter as a prime candidate for canonization in Children’s Literature and defended its literary merits.

I could agree with your argument for the first book, and maybe the first 3 books, but the later books are marketed for an older audience than those of the other authors mentioned, you know this, she admits this, and the texts themselves show this. The fighting and death, the racist-realism, if you will all demonstrate this, the only thing that qualifies the later 4 novels as children's literature is that the first three were, not that great an argument. As such, she needs to be judged, or at least those texts need to be judged, in accordance with the standard giving a mature fiction, in that they represent a mature fiction, and the question of genre is that of adult, or perhaps, young adult fiction (Young adult is a new term with a shakier definition, but it still is not children's lit).

As I said before, she should have written 3 books, one dealing with Harry in his first year, one dealing with Harry in his last year, and then one dealing with Harry in his later life. That could be argued. But the play by play makes no sense. I have read criticism that people believe Rowling killed characters as a way of trying to make her books more mature, in an artificial sense, and in an attempt to break away from the children's lit fixation of cleanliness in ending - for instance, in books 1-3 Harry always saves the day.



Harry Potter functions in a fantastical sub-genre known as Wainscot, which is a subgenre of Urban fantasy. The power of fantasy is in its ability to restore objectivity by divorcing itself even further from reality than Realist fiction is capable of doing, and allowing us to see important issues that affect our everyday lives in a new direction, new angle, new slant. In an interview I did with up-and-coming fantasy writer, Kameron Hurley, on my blog, she stated these points more succinctly:

“As for the remove that takes place in epic, heroic, or just plain fantasy works, I’d argue that it’s the remove from the real world than comes closest to examining issues objectively. When you’re mired in your own world, familiar surroundings, you’re more numb to what you’d see as the everyday routines of life, the “normal,” the “expected,” the “natural.” When you remove these things from their settings you can often see the absurdities of them, the injustice. Fantasy – good fantasy – can do that without feeling didactic.”


You are just going jargon heavy by a bunch of weird academic practices. The texts may fit into a genre that is popular in fantasy, but they are not connected to the genre of fantasy in the sense that someone like Orson Scott Card. I bet Rowling has never read much contemporary fantasy, and to try to root her in a tradition of criticism that basically is over another tradition of literature is iffy - her extent of Fantasy literature does not include much written after the 60s, with the vast amount being written much earlier. You know this. As for the genre acting as a form of memisis - well no doubt, it isn't the first text to do that. Gulliver's travels functions in the same way - heck, More's Utopia does the same thing. It's not exactly a new concept.

It also exists across boundaries - the Chinese novel Flowers in a Mirror beats the concept by hundreds of years, and is undoubtedly better.

My problem then, is that in general most good literature functions in this manner. It is not unique to fantasy to offer a critique as a form of escape from the contemporary - the didactic reading of Potter is one of rather bland allegory. You are saying she is paralleling the racist and classicist atmosphere of the world, and, as her movie directors suggested, using Voldemort as a parallel for a violent evil, with all the cliche Hitler analogies. George Lucas got burned for writing the same plot, but he at least redeemed it. Harry being separate from this evil is a rather weak hero. He never battles his own urges for evil, in the sense that all heroes must, so he falls short. The parallel then becomes weak black and white - good and bad - without ever amounting to a proper criticism.

All Slytherin people are bad, Malfoy is just a coward, but still not a good person. All rich people are Slytherins, and therefore bad. There are a few strawmen villains, like the Irish kid who betrays Harry (oh you disloyal Irish, tisk tisk) but Harry himself never questions himself. He never sees Voldemort in himself, and therefore Voldemort is reduced to an embodiment of a non-tangible, rather bland villain. He is all bad, but is apart from those good middle and lower class British folk. Great social realism!



Urban fantasy in particular allows for direct parallels between the real world and the fantastical milieu. In Epic fantasy or Sword-and-Sorcery the world is further divorced from modern reality. Unfortunately many fantasies are content with simply creating an entertaining adventure story rather than taking advantage of this unique ability of fantasy.

The world of Harry Potter is our world, but transformed through the lens of magic. The two worlds exist alongside each other within the story, encouraging us to read into these parallels. In the hidden magical world we have shops, banks, sporting events, boarding schools, government, but twisted around into new forms through the magical milieu. The attraction at first for the reader is the whimsical charm this familiarity brings, a strange world that is both alien and familiar at the same time. Harry Potter, while possessing a serious story at times, is almost playful with its world and characters and in the actual prose itself. Even in its opening lines we get this sense of playful whimsy:

“Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privert Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you’d expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn’t hold with such nonsense.” – Opening of HP and the Sorcerer’s Stone (Book 1).

One thing that most critics and proponents of the series can agree on is that the story on some level is about racism; disagreement, of course, exists over the amount of depth it deals with this issue. The racial theme centers on an inter-wizarding ideological conflict between mudbloods (wizards with human parents) and pure bloods (the term is self-explanatory). The ideology of wizarding “racism” takes different forms throughout the novel: we have petty harassment, name-calling, and disdain (exemplified by Draco Malfoy and Slytherins), we have those who advocate for outright exclusion of mudbloods, along with torture and slavery of Muggles (the deatheaters), those with elitist racial attitudes who would rule over Muggles as benevolent philosopher-king/dictators for their own good (Dumbledore in his youth and the dark wizard Grindenwald), and even those who show a slight aversion towards Mudbloods if not verbalized hatred or actions of blatant discrimination (Slughorn who like the typical white person caught saying something stereotypically racist will deny that they are racist). The book doesn’t paint a simplistic portrait of racism, but shows it in its many different forms and expressions, some being more extreme than others, much like racism in real life. The story further complicates this reading through its parallels of the Muggle and Wizarding worlds; the real difference between these two worlds is that the members of one can do magic and the members of the other cannot. This is where the fantasy divide allows for objectivity. All the readers of the books are by definition muggles since magic doesn’t exist in the real world. Therefore, the divide between Muggle and Wizard only matters in the story’s logic and not in any thematic sense. However, by creating a difference between the inhabitants of the two worlds, it allows the reader to see the arbitrariness of the mudblood/pure blood division so important to the racial politics of the Wizarding World. For the reader who knows there is no such thing as Wizards, this fictional logic and imaginary rules forces them to view racism in a new light; as far as we’re concerned all wizards are essentially the same, able to perform magic with equal ability whether they are mudblood or pure blood. By divorcing it from the real world into an imaginary setting we see firsthand in an objective light just how arbitrary racism is as Rowling literally designs her own made-up form of racism in the Wizarding World. It allows children and young adults to think about this arbitrary quality inherent in racism in a way that could never be achieved by just showing them a realistic story about it. It is precisely through the divorcing quality of fantasy, by creating an ideology that exists only in a different world, yet bearing similarities to our own ideologies, that allows us to see the extent of racism’s arbitrary nature.


See above. She does not do a good job of putting her points forward, as she produces a strawman villain. Her villain is not racism, in the sense that racism exists everywhere in everyone's psychology. The divide between the good and the bad makes the books bad moral literature. You have to first be tempted to go bad, but harry is never tempted, and never contemplates acting in such a manner. If he did, it would make the text more interesting, for instance, if he had betrayed Ron for Malfoy, and then learned to see his mistake, there would have been a better reflection and development, but he never does. Evil is always beyond him, therefore he is rather weak as a hero. His only flaw, minus his weaknesses physically, is that he is prone to a sense of self-agrandizement and heroics. He maintains that to the end, and it is instead translated into a sense of bravery and pride.

That being said, does not realism fiction work exactly the same? Is that not what we call setting? Is that not what Plato was talking about? These characteristics are not unique to fantasy, and not particularly reflected in fantasy, nor in Rowling. As I mentioned before, More, or Swift, or anybody else could be held as a better model than this work. The idea of work being a form of veiled memisis is as present in Milton, and Spenser, as it is in parts of Chaucer and Virgil. Aristotle talks about similar ideas in his poetics and discussion of Epic at the beginning. Arguably your understanding of fantasy as somehow more unique needs more evidence than that. It is unique in that it gives room for invention, but Rowling is hardly original in manipulating it, and I would argue, not a particularly good political author. Her moralizing is weak, and your didactic reading of the text, I would argue, pays her to much service.



Some might see parallels to LeGuin’s Wizard of Earthsea. There are a number of obvious and important differences: 1) LeGuin’s novel is firmly an epic fantasy in a secondary world rather than an Urban Fantasy Wainscot. 2) Only one section of the first novel takes place in a magic school and it’s an utterly serious school, lacking all the whimsical playfulness that makes Potter so enjoyable 3) the main character is meant to be one of the most talented Wizards ever to exist, much like Tom Riddle, whose own pride is his undoing (creating a very different character from Potter and a very different theme that LeGuin is exploring). These important differences end up creating very different stories, with different feels, characters, tones, purposes, etc.
Harry Potter is meant to be portrayed as a clever but mediocre Wizard who relies heavily on his friends for survival. Rowling continually emphasizes his average ability as a wizard. He cannot solve his problems merely by turning to his awesome powers, but needs help from outsiders, thus twisting the long tradition of fantasy archetypes and stereotypes of super powerful chosen ones exemplified by characters such as Rand Al'Thor in The Wheel of Time of series where the Chosen One is super powerful and its through his immense power that he can save the world from the Dark One. Harry Potter subverts this trope numerous times by continually emphasizing Potter’s average ability as a wizard. As book 5 makes clear, with the prophecy, Potter was not Chosen because of his supreme ability in Wizarding, but Voldemort chose him because he believed the prophecy meant Potter (thus making it a self-fulfilling prophecy); the book says it could just as easily have been Neville Longbottom who the prophecy referred to, and had Voldemort read the prophecy that way he would’ve been the Chosen One and not Potter.

I am not 100% sure what you are trying to argue but I will try. The earthsea is different in that the focus is on character development, whereas Potter is decidedly not. Le Guin does a good job of putting the character, someone beyond everyone else, in a position where he must face himself, a parallel to the heroic journey, and an homage to Eastern Religion. Rowling puts the hero against a white and black world where he is decidedly white.

As for the character's flaws, well, he has them, like anybody. That isn't much credit - if Potter was all powerful the text would be weak. His arbitrary choice of being the hero is also a weak description of the heroic. He is not shown to be a mediocre wizard, just not shown to be overly exceptional. His prowess in certain fields is lauded. For instance, he produces that stag thing which impresses everyone, and he learns to do things faster than most people. He is not a bad wizard, and is decidedly as good as his friends, and better than his classmates - he is not his friend Ron. Ron is the idiot, the buffoon, the but-end of the jokes. He does everything wrong, and breaks his wand, has no money, can never measure up to anybody, etc. The two are put in contrast deliberately - moron against excellence. Harry relies on the moron, and his decidedly better friend, but he is still not bad - he is better in his way than everyone, despite benefiting from the help of his friends.

Now, one could take that a step further by saying what is the deal with the Ron guy? He is bad at everything, never does anything, has no money or career goals, and never amounts to anything. I am not sure what happens to him at the end of the novel, but he never measures up to his friend, or even his girlfriend, who is undoubtedly the best of the group, yet is always reduced in stature based on her Gender. Gender critics have had a field day seeing how the books subordinate women to domestic duties and put forward an old Bread-winner Home-maker system as an ideal English mentality. The most lauded women seem to be the mother figures, with Hermione no doubt retiring into one herself and becoming Ron's mom.

Now with that in mind, Ron is an idiot. Hermione is a genius. She should be the bread-winner, she should be the one lauded, she should be the best friend. But Potter cannot do that. Rowling is not able, Ron is the best friend, for no apparent reason than that of male Comradery.




One of the most dynamic aspects of the text is the characters. In the beginning of the series, we have a scared, hapless, neglected orphan protagonist named Harry Potter, reviled by his uncle and aunt for his strangeness and clearly out of place in the normal world. He soon discovers that he is a wizard and ends up at a school where he develops new friendships that functions as his replacement family. These friendships are not set in stone; indeed, there many points in the later novels where the core friendship of Ron, Hermione, and Harry almost shatters, but ultimately by the end they, too, come to realize they’re a family and need each other. There are a lot of tangible developments of Harry’s character by the end of the series:

1) One of the most obvious changes from the earlier books is Harry’s desire to play down his celebrity status; he seems embarrassed by it, wanting to blend in with the crowd, and be like any normal kid, but by the final book he embraces his role and fate as the savior of the Wizarding World, even allowing himself to be sacrificed for the sake of everyone else. His choice of name is no accident.

2) However, even more microscopic changes in his character and his relationships are evident as the series progresses; by the final book, Harry’s relationship with the Dursleys has transformed radically, with both sides expressing feelings for each other. The Dursleys, far from being merely a comical interlude and parody of bourgeoisie foibles, plays a crucial part in the development of Harry’s character. Due to past neglect and lack of parental figures, Harry struggles to trust his friends and adults at first. Ultimately, trust in others is what Potter must accept.

3) By the final book, in order to win he must trust in his friends to fight back, he must trust in Dumbledore who he learns isn’t the perfect saintly man he believed him to be during the final book; Harry might play a large part in defeating Voldemort, but he cannot defeat his forces alone.

4) In the end, Harry goes from an orphan who lost his family to building a new family through his experiences at Hogwarts and by literally starting his own as the final sequence of the novel.

5) Harry ends up facing his fears (developed and reexplored throughout the novels) and learns that death is an inevitable part of life; something, Voldemort who functions as a parallel to him, never learns or accepts. Harry learns to accept death as an inevitable part of life, which allows him to be sacrificed to save everyone else. He needs to overcome his parent’s death and his “foster” parents death: Sirius Black and Dumbledore.
Now granted from the very first books we witness a character who is brave and courageous and who cares about his friends. Rowling doesn’t change the central qualities of her character, but I do believe she develops them over the course of the books so that these innate qualities mature. He switches from others sacrificing themselves for him to him sacrificing himself for others.



I am just going to say you read the plot into the character, but you have a specific flaw. You are making these conclusions, not the text. Harry is not this dynamic in the books. He is stagnant. Much of the development is in the form of Rowling moralizing, and bends the characterisation, only to be reaffirmed later. It is not demonstrated, but described, and therefore the development you list is arbitrary. I do not feel Harry grows up. I do not feel the Dursley's are anything but stock character muggles - despite her resympathizing of them in later volumes.

Harry never learns. From day 1 at Hogwarts till the last minute, he is the same. He loves his fame, and loves his sense of heroics. His own self-sacrificing is just more didactic bull**** from Rowling, it is not convincing or interesting and no different than the ending of book 1 when Harry does the same thing - he needs to save the world, and is willing to sacrifice himself, as he tries in book 2, and in book 4. The idea of maturing to the point of being self-sacrificing is a weak argument. He plays the same ploy in book 1 when he is going for the philosopher's stone. Ron does it too. That is not development.

Now take Ron - they have a fight in book 4 - same fight in book 7. No development in that regard, and it ends the same way - Ron comes back and is welcomed, static and dull.

Hermoine - same thing, brainy girl, always the clever one, always loyal, always self-proud, and honestly such an unintentional lampoon of the female activist with her self-proud affirmation of rights. You cannot but feel that she is like a caricature of the detested female activist, with her overly brainy self-proud pronouncements of her moral superiority and "what is right". I guess that is how the book is supposed to read to. Hermione is always right - flat and boring.

Ron and his relations with his friends never mature. He starts off in search of a sense of family - he puts it first in Hagrid, then in the Weasley's (I believe there is a line in one of the books that he wants to give them half his money or something), then in Sirius, then in
Dumbledore - this transfer does not show development. Later he transfers it back onto the Weasley's, marries one, and basically comes to a bland resolution that his search for family is revealed - the Nuclear family persists with the Mother figure reigning supreme in her Kitchen.

Does he learn to trust his friends - well, I think he trusts his friend Ron from the beginning, and never argues with him when he is wrong - he is not prone to Ron's pettiness. Ron's petty lower-class resentments and jealousy are always shown to be wrong, whereas self-superior Potter is always in the right. He relies on three friends (I include Hagrid), and then the cast expands to include more - but the development is never more mature. He never questions his friends outright, always trusts them, and never has to come to terms with real betrayal.

Dumbledore never goes against him Ron does not sell him out - their friendship is never challenged by Potter, who remains a true friend without doubt the whole time. Ron is the one that faces these challenges, but he never learns to overcome his self-inferiority and his resentment of his friend's "luck" or "successes".





The so-called red herring elements in her plot can best be explained by understanding one of the major themes of the work. One of her themes in the book is adolescent misjudgment of people. The characters continually misjudged characters personalities and motivations. Not to mention Harry himself is naturally mistrustful of adults and friendship because of his upbringing with the Dursleys. A red herring shifting between possible villains makes perfect sense with a theme that centers on mistrusting adults, especially new ones to appear in your life, and misjudging people because of that mistrust, thus overturning expectations and assumptions of the characters. Harry doesn’t just misjudge Snape, but also Malfoy and a whole slew of characters—he even misjudges Dumbledore who it turns out has a darker side as revealed in the final book.

That is a shallow reading. It is not about trust and mistrust. It is about plotting. The Red-herrings never feature as an elaborate sense of character development - they drive the plot. They do not drive the characters, only the plot. Snape is presumed evil in book 1 - it turns out to be a character who is virtually unseen throughout the book, the weird idiot bumbling teacher, who is curious, but not interesting - it turns out then to just be Voldemort - same battle sequence, and the game is over. Harry comes out only learning that despite he hating Snape, Snape was not in the wrong this time.

Book 2 - oh it is Malfoy who is killing people - oops no, it is Voldemort, repeat, same conclusion.

Book 3 - it is this new guy we just heard of who is an agent of voldemort - no it is someone else, another agent of voldemort, repeat, etc.

book 4 - It is that Bulgarian? teacher (we cannot trust those non-English wizards, tisk tisk) - oops no it is Voldemort again, and what a tragedy, he had been helping him all along - still no development.

Book 5 - Need to play the hero, oh whoops, It's voldemort again - Harry comes to terms with death, but the conclusion is ambiguous - does he actually learn to stop being a hero all the time - does he actually mature? Well lets see book 6.

Book 6 - Harry in hero mode now - arrogant, determined. All the lessons are translated into - I should talk to people before heading out there. We are taught Snape is a bad guy, and he seems to be one at the end of the book, but we need to wait to find out that he is good, and it was just, yup you guessed it, Voldemort again.

Book 7 - Basically the extended ending of book 6 - Evil Snape turns out to be good Snape, Voldemort is defeated because of a weird technicality - Harry becomes Jesus and dies for everyone's sins. And then we have a happy ending. No real development, except in his relationship to Snape, who, thanks to Alan Rickman's acting, is shown to be a tragic man in love, instead of just a cold, cynical, violent misanthrope.


So where is this development through red-herrings - the device is apparent in all the texts and plays out the exact same in every text. There is no development as to Harry learning who to trust and who not to trust. He makes the same assumptions in book 6 as he does in book 1 - these devices function to push the plot forward, not to push the characters forward - his "distrust" of his world is as apparent in book 7 as it is in book 1.



Larry from OF Blog at the Fallen adroitly links this theme of misjudgment with Harry’s maturity through the novels, “The HP of the first book is 11 years old, with the world-view of an 11 year-old boy. He cannot readily see the goodness that lurks within the tortured frame of a Snape or within the spoiled shaping of a Draco Malfoy. They are enemies to overcome - perhaps not capital E Evil like Voldemort, but still just that, "evil." But as the series progresses and we witness things through Harry's PoV, things subtly change, until we too are forced to change our preconceptions of a Snape or a Draco to see that they are not static characters, but that they too are as dynamic as Harry or any of his friends. We end up seeing Harry's world through the eyes of one who is ready to leave his childhood shell to become an adult who will be wise enough to remember the lessons learned during that childhood apprenticeship stage.”

Is it Harry's perception that changes, or rather ours. Rowling I think just reinvented the characters. Either way, Malfoy is not a good guy, Snape is also not a good guy - he is a badguy with a fetish for exotic women - the point is if he had actually been good, he would not have been a bad guy in the first place. He acts out of a sense of guilt and shame, and is perhaps the only character I could say works, though only in the 7th movie, and only thanks to Alan Rickman. Snape in 1-6 is a stock character.

So basically we are judging all the development on the shift from sequence to ending - so basically all on book 7. I have not read it, so I cannot comment in depth, but I would put forward that all these developments happen in the end, not in books 1-6. Therefore, it is safe to say, there is no development from 1-6 and this argument can only be laid upon the conclusion. In other words, from a character perspective, the books are rather weak, and books 2-6 are superfluous.


Still, all the themes such as friendship, the power of love, learning to trust others after abuse and having no one to love you, learning to trust adults through an adolescent’s eyes in a world where adults lie and tell half-truths are all subservient to the larger moral theme of Harry Potter, the crux of the series so to speak: Choice. In Harry Potter it is the choices we make that define us.

The story’s true center is the connected background of Voldemort and Harry Potter. The longish looks into Voldemort's "origins," which play out throughout all the novels, but especially the middle ones, reveal that Voldemort and Harry Potter are mirror reflections of each other. Both orphans, both living among Muggles who mistreat them, and despite these similar backgrounds both choose to take different paths in their lives. Voldemort is terrified of dying, seeking immortality, while Harry is willing to sacrifice his life so that his friends might live. Voldemort inspires the loyalty of his followers through fear, torture, and his unmatched talent as a wizard, while Harry inspires his friends through his courage, even though he is a mediocre wizard as far as talent and skill go. In the earlier novels, the sorting hat suggests Harry would be a good fit in Slytherin before placing him in Gryffindor. Harry asks Dumbledore why the sorting head almost placed him in Slytherin. Dumbledore explains that the sorting hat looks at the qualities within us, but also pays attention to our own choices; Harry, of course, repeatedly told the hat that he didn't want to end up in Slytherin. We see here an important point made in this moment. Harry could've ended up in Slythern like Voldemort, but likewise Voldemort could've ended up in Griffindor had his choices been different. This theme and central parallel of the novel provides the main moral point of the novel: there is no such thing as immutable essences called good and evil, but it is our choices that make us good or evil. This is a world of difference from the million Tolkien copies where there are Lucifers, Devils, and Dark Ones who are evil Dark Lords in their core essence. Not only are Harry Potter and Voldemort linked by destiny to face each other and magical scars wounds that allow Harry to gain Voldemort’s abilities (ability to speak to snakes called Parsel tongue), but they really have many of the same experiences; however, they react to those experiences differently. Harry Potter chooses love and sacrifice, while Voldemort chooses fear and selfishness. Dumbledore continually tells his protégé that what separates Harry from voldemort is his loyalty to his friends and that most precious of emotions, love.

This does not make them good. These are stalk characteristics of any book with conflict.

Harry is good, Voldemort is bad. The distinction comes from book 1. Of course, given the same circumstances the characters make different choices - my problem is to Harry, these are the only choices.

Luke Skywalker battles himself, and must learn to become good on his own terms. Ged from the Earthsea does something similar - he learns restraint from battling his own unrestrained self.

Harry's foil is a non-foil, because the distinction is constantly made - his foil cannot love, has never loved, and has always been violent. Since childhood he has been a little devil, whereas Harry is meek and mild. Voldemort can be called a purely negative force, whereas Harry never acts out of character, and never has a desire to. He is a cardboard hero.

The idea of choice is an iffy discussion in the text. Potter rarely makes difficult choices - the reader knows he will choose good always, and never has to grapple with his desire for evil. Harry has no desire to be like Voldemort, and his Biggest "choice" in the text is deciding not to be in Slytherin. Their connection is arbitrary, and more in keeping with the downright moralizing tone of the later volumes (from what I gather, particularly the last volume). The first text does not feature this weird connection - Voldemort is a static character, as is Harry up until book 6, when Rowling decided she wanted to preach a little to her audience.



However, like most the themes in Harry Potter, even love is not an uncomplicated emotion. Like the anti-racial themes it too is treated in a fairly sophisticated way. As critic Karin Westman writes, “[w]hile the earlier books in the series depict love as a generative and protective force, Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows remind us that love can wound as well as shield. In these last two books Rowling locates love's damaging consequences not only within secondary characters like Voldemort's mother Merope and Bellatrix but also within the seemingly unassailable, all-powerful character of Dumbledore, thereby forging unlikely connections between disparate characters. Such parallels diminish easy distinctions between good and bad people and foreground the paradox of love's power. By the end of Rowling's series, love is indeed a weapon, as Dumbledore often explains to Harry, but that weapon is dangerously double-edged, placing the lover and the beloved at risk if it is improperly handled.” Even characters like Ron fall prey to this double-edged sword, temporarily abandoning Harry and Hermione in the final book because he thinks Potter is making moves on the woman he loves (Hermione) and jealousy over Harry’s fame (a personal character flaw that continually rears its ugly head from the earlier books). However, Ron does make the right moral choice and returns to his friends, winning the adoration of Hermione.

I disagree in how complex it is, because I do not feel the development ever matures. Of course love has the power to cause pain, but that does not mean the concept of love is ever understood or developed. Take Ginny for instance - Harry loves her supposedly? Why how, in what what? When does this come about? Snape loves a filthy mudblood, and therefore becomes a good guy, oh great moralizing. Or how about this one, Ron did that in book 4, so this new development is uninteresting.

As for Dumbledore I am not sure, that may be in the text, but I hear he turned out to be gay in later interviews - it just shows how she didn't develop anything in the texts.

By and by, if all these so called developments do happen in book 7, as I argued before, books 2-6 are just filler. They certainly do not happen in there, and therefore, I would call this too little too late. It took her what, 4000 pages to say something that could be told in 200? Or has been told better in 200? Take Bridge to Teribithia - it did it much faster, the themes of isolation and family pain, escape, death, and even love. That's a children's book that got it down much faster and better.




Individual moral choice is everywhere in the Potter books. Another obvious example is when Draco Malfoy cannot kill Dumbledore. He makes the wrong moral choices in the sixth book, Half-Blood Prince, by helping the Death Eaters to break into Hogwarts, while under duress over the threats to his father’s life. However, he too, must face a real moral choice. Dumbledore tells him he has a choice--he need not proceed down this path. Draco Malfoy in the final book makes the right choice, despite being inclined towards the path of pure-blooded racial politics of Slythern--we see a further complication of simplistic morality in that even racists, which the novel depicts Malfoy engaging in numerous times more than any other character--can sometimes make the right moral choices.

That says something for Malfoy, but not for Harry. Harry, the protagonist, never makes the wrong choice, and never really chooses - therefore no real development in that regard. There is only one choice for Harry, and he doesn't even think it over. To have a moral choice there must be an allure from the other side - Harry never feels that allure. As for Malfoy, all these developments happen at the very end, so as I put it, 6 books of filler, one book of moralizing affirmations. Still plot driven, and too little too late.



Often critics who call out Rowling’s style have a rather myopic understanding of the term. They will point to a single sentence or two that employs a cliché way of expressing a character’s emotion and shout cliché until their face turns blue. On a sentence by sentence level, indeed, Rowling is nothing special. However, when looked at from a larger paragraph by paragraph basis, Rowling’s work brims with style. In fact, it’s precisely the style that Rowling shines in many occasions. As I pointed out earlier in this thread the opening of Potter exhibits a playfulness in tone reminiscent of Dickens and Austen, while lacking their superior diction and syntax. In an early paragraph about Mr. Dursley, Rowling cleverly characterizes him by deconstructing typical associations of emotions and mood. She takes a typical action (shouting and screaming) normally associated with anger and stress, and flips our expectations in this paragraph by depicting Dursley as being "in a very good mood" after all this yelling as part of his job, telling us a lot about his character in the process in a fairly clever economical way. The playfulness of the tone enlivens the magic world to make the story so much more than a typical romp through a fantasy environment. Even minor details like candy, magical to most children already, is made more magical: strange Jellybean flavors, animated chocolate frogs, etc. These little details show an author thinking through the minor stuff and imbuing even the tiniest fragment of her world with originality. Throughout the work there is an evident playfulness with archetypes and characters that challenge our expectations and re-imagines familiar tropes in new light. The playfulness isn’t just in the reworking of the fantasy tropes themselves, but can be found in the prose and the way she narrates the story.


Come on man. Every author does that. These are typical things ever kid learns to do in school. You give people more credit than they deserve. Her style at the beginning isn't god awful, but it isn't Austen, or Dickens. It is not Le Guin either, who has been praised and written extensively on the use of language in fantasy literature. These tropes aren't knew either. Think Charlie and the Chocolate factory, or even Alice. They use these same tropes of magical world, and everything topsy turvey. She has some cute ideas, I will grant, those beans or those frogs, and these "animated" forms she plays with, but they are not enough to carry the text. You are giving her credit as if she invented writing. Her prose is not that great, and you cannot overly praise her for doing what every other published novel does - use language to describe things. She is not unique in her use of language, she is not even good at it. She is ok, and it carries the story. That is about it. That she uses language to describe characters is not a new revelation. That she builds her paragraph around charicaturing someone like Dursley in the same move that Dickens does in all his works, and many subsequent authors, and preceding authors did before. Tolstoy does it, heck, every realist novelist does it. She is arguably more in the tradition of caricature (how English), but she is not Austen, nor Dickens, and if you argue that she is using caricature, you must retract your arguments that these caricatures somehow are overly deep personalities.

You are either a caricature or a deep character - you are either a Dickens character or a basic stereotype - think Wagner versus Shakespeare - Tristan and Isolde are archetypes, Falstaff and Hamlet are as vast as the ocean. Neither are better, but they do not exist in the same way. Tristan can only do one thing, Hamlet cannot not overthink things. If Rowling is using caricature, using these Tristan like characters, or these Sigfreid-like characters, then we cannot make the argument that these characters mature, or develop. It is not necessary for a novel, except that it is necessary for this novel. Austen's Elizabeth must overcome her Pride and Prejudice - Harry does not overcome anything in himself.



One who is performing a careful reading of Potter and who is familiar with lots of other children’s books being published today will recognize that is fairly complicated literature for a children's book. The appeal of Harry Potter as a child of abuse learning to negotiate a dark and sometimes cruel world that can be loveless and it where it is uncertain on whom you can trust, while not succumbing down the path of hatred, fear, and sadism, by not becoming a Voldemort, is obvious. As critic Roni Natov puts it, “Harry embodies this state of injustice frequently experienced by children, often as inchoate fear and anger--and its other side, desire to possess extraordinary powers that will overcome such early and deep exile from the child's birthright of love and protection.” As Larry notes when he quotes G. K. Chesterton, Harry Potter teaches us that we all face dragons, but sometimes we can beat the dragons.
That is just pure mediocre didacticism from the worst brand of critic. All children's literature, or at least all praised children's literature does that. The contemporary field of children's literature is overly didactic. Think Judy Bloom not writing a book that is meant to probe controversial development. To praise the books because they are didactic is an argument you can hold, but of which I do not particularly care. The books to me are overly Christian, and do not represent the values I would wish to impart of a child. A Wizard of the Earthsea is a better example of a children's book about facing demons.

The books are cut and paste good versus evil. Harry must learn to overcome evil, but so must virtually all other children's book protagonists. They must learn to come to terms with death, they must learn to come to terms with abuse. These are not unique traits, therefore praising the books for including them is a rather silly argument. It's like praising a cake for including sugar in its ingredients.

I have compared the book to Starwars more than once (I like to only think of the original trilogy) and will say that Harry is even flatter than Luke. Harry never needs to battle his inner demon - he never comes to terms with himself as Voldemort. He battles the metaphorical inner demon, but he does not battle himself. It is a convenient ploy by these critics to not see the distinction of fighting a piece of voldemort, or fighting voldemort, or fighting oneself. The way Rowling constructed it, Harry does not fight himself, only Voldemort, there is never a question in the reader's mind that Harry will become a new Voldemort.

Take Luke now, he actually goes against his teachers, does battle with his inner demon, and comes to his conclusion - he faces himself in the form of his father, and comes to a conclusion that he is good. That is the moral heroic journey. Harry never has to confront himself.


Some critics have the disease of regarding book characters as deeper than they are. rowling was not thinking of all these things when she penned the first Potter. She was not discussing in her head contemporary terminology for child psychology, she was not creating a "human" but rather a character. any sensible person would thus treat as a literary figure rather than as an actual child. He is not an actual child, and therefore, we cannot understand him outside of the conventions of literature.

That being said, if we want to deal with this moralizing crap that these critics are putting forward, why don't we just read Great Expectations. All these themes are all contained within that book, without a miss. In fact, it feels as if these critics are talking about that book, and are basically changing then names of all the characters to fit with Harry.

Dickens however was a better author. Pip is redeemed through his friends, but also goes through a down period. He rebels, finds a new mother in the upper class, comes to love a father he despises, returns for forgiveness from his adoptive father, and becomes mature and can live his life - contained, complete story.

Potter hates his adoptive parents more than Pip (who loves his uncle), goes off with his adoptive parents Hagrid/dumbledore/sirius/dumbledore, makes friends (Harry, Hermione, etc.), battles evil, but never faces himself. The development pattern that makes Pip a better contender for the above descriptions is that Pip learns to be self-reflexive, whereas Harry does not. Hagrid is never really questioned, for instance. Pip is redeemed by his friends, and can remake himself by facing himself - Harry is totally a plot device - he relies on his friends but his friendship is never questioned - he knows who his parents are and loves them, whether or not they are transposed - and his facing his childhood demons is never properly resolved. He does not, for instance, ever do battle with an internal conflict the way Pip does. (Pip at the end of the text, I will remind you, gets sick and almost dies as he confronts the truth of his Great Expectations).

So there you have it. A rather dry reading that could be applied to any other better text. Heck, take David Copperfield - the same idea almost entirely. Take Thamora Pierce's novels, the same idea. It's what we called a Bildungsroman, of course the text has these features.

Your critical work is affirming something as praiseworthy when it is basically what we call the standard plot. The standard cannot be praised as unique, because it is a standard, therefore should not be lauded as special to Rowling, and Rowling's use of it should not be lauded as original. Basically every Bildungsroman is about somebody out of place learning their place. Almost every one features the personalities of father/mother and friends, and almost every one will require its protagonist to make a moral decision and reach maturity.

Rowling did not invent this, and I do not need to read some Jargon-heavy critique that exposes these stock forms within the text.


I praise you for your research, but none of this demonstrates to me any uniqueness, or anything particularly noteworthy within the text. As anyone can note, this book was destined to have a critical following, as there are numerous critics whose job is to critique popular phenomenon. I had a professor who has extensively written on Sex in the City, for instance. There is a degree in everything, and of course there is a degree in Potter - the phenomenon is worth Billions of dollars. There is a degree in Starwars too - does that mean Star Wars is the peak of cinema? Does that mean those studying the appeal of Kraft foods will be studying the be-all and end-all of food? Of course not, just because something is studied now doesn't mean it is already a classic. There are still people who study long dead novelists.

I know one in particular who read all of the unknown French serial authors who were popular but unheard of after their time. It is the equivalent. There will always be analysts of phenomena.

[JBI]

I look forward to people picking out one sentence to pick on!

Somehow I would assume that such an approach would beneath JBI, JCamilo, and others that might disagree. That seems more the strategy Yes/No.

Personally I've had far too much Tequilla tonight to even begin to think of reading such a lengthy post.

But perhaps just enough to make Harry Potter palatable.:D

It is necessary to reply when someone outright criticizes your remarks, so I have replied. IF there are more specific arguments with my post, please post a shorter block of text, as I do not like this form of broken quotations - it gives me a headache to write it.

[qimissung]

Excuse me, but the word "stalk" should be "stock"-the phrase is 'stock characters.'

[JCamilo]

It is not like you are nitpicking one line, JBI :D

Anyways, I do not have much to argue with Drkshadow. Mostly, he made a description of the series. No problem. But the argument if HP will be a classic or not, is not something he can prove, neither I disprove. The critical consesus is hardly final, it is very soon. She, herselfs, admits a review of some books, she can follow another turn, who knows.

I do not however think of HP as children literature when analysing it. If they cannot survive the same critery than other books, beyond genre, then there is not much reason to give this nod. All techniques are pretty much the same, every author has a public in his mind and I hardly am part of any of those publics. In HP even more, as it is not one of those children literature, where text and image must combine for the work quality. It is pure text.

And I do agree with JBI. Either you have arquetipical characters of deep character development. I see claims of both and it is a mistake. HP is a work with characters, this means they are full, complete, from day one. There is a mistake, equating his adventures development with psychological development. He got stronger but not deeper. (As much annoy me the lust for psychological development of characters, which are usually an arquetypical character overanalysing the path he didnt take, a denial, rather than a real depth). This itself is not a flaw. But the author, the book, the readers grow, not the characters.

I do not even mind the term fantasy. Fantasy is just reality with a fancy trick. Take X-men. They are all students. But of course, with the time and the usual chaotic chronology of comic books, they didnt had any of students, but addults. However, at some point, Marvel noticed the potential and the aparent potential and released New Mutants. Which are basically teenagers growing up in a School while having a second life as super-heroes (almost a mytical world appart of the real world). The concept was better explored with Generation X comics, but soon, there was spin offs (DC Teen Titans was also about young super-heroes, but they weren't always teens and acted mostly like young version of the addults) like Gen 13. All about teenagers living in a "special" World.

The idea is there, we will find a hundred variations. Rowling had talent to unify it at the right time. And then, like all those, the market demanded a serie of books, less space to run from the formula, etc. They wanted the teen market, the idea of year by year was nice, just not the best for what she seemed to do best. No risk taken. There is much exageration on compliments because the books are caught in this cruxible. Will take make them forgotten in 10,20,30 years? No. Flawed books survive.

[JBI]

Excuse me, but the word "stalk" should be "stock"-the phrase is 'stock characters.'

Yes, and there are undoubtedly hundreds of grammatical errors. You try writing that on a cellphone! and with a headache yet.

[mona amon]

Great essay, Darkshadow! It actually made me teary at points. :blush:

JBI, I haven't yet read yours, which I'll do later. Just one point which leapt out at me -


There are a few strawmen villains, like the Irish kid who betrays Harry (oh you disloyal Irish, tisk tisk) but Harry himself never questions himself. He never sees Voldemort in himself, and therefore Voldemort is reduced to an embodiment of a non-tangible, rather bland villain. He is all bad, but is apart from those good middle and lower class British folk. Great social realism!

Which irish kid betrays Harry? I can't even imagine who you mean.

Throughout the books Harry is faced with his forced connection to Voldemort, the possibility of his being tainted by him, as well as seeing certain similarities and even feeling empathy at times. eg "....[cut]...He and Voldemort and Snape, the abandoned boys, had all found home here..." It doesn't need a multi layered villain to make it a multi layered book.

[JBI]

Maybe he is just Irish in the movie, I forget, but in the fifth book he is the one who believes Harry is evil. Edit: after googling, it is his Irish friend Seamus.

[mona amon]

Oh, Seamus Finnigan. He's Harry's classmate and dorm mate, and he temporarily (very temporarily) distrusts Harry. No betrayal or anything that dramatic.

[qimissung]

No need to get snippy; I was just trying to be helpful.

[JBI]

Oh, Seamus Finnigan. He's Harry's classmate and dorm mate, and he temporarily (very temporarily) distrusts Harry. No betrayal or anything that dramatic.

In the sense that Drkshadow was discussing trust, and friendship, it is a form of betrayal, in that he goes against their 4-year friendship. If we are reading the book as a kid learning to trust his world, then this is a form of betrayal. But as you put it in agreement, it is temporary, and not the consequential. He never is actually betrayed by someone he trusts.

[Lokasenna]

Hmmm. You say 'derivitive,' Lokasenna, and I say 'building on centuries of work that has gone before.'

I always like the archetypes because they are like a basic black dress. You can do anything to them and with them and each creation is completely different than all the other ones. It's true that it is difficult to write something that does not use these elements-and that we love authors who are able to do so. On the other hand, I didn't write what I wrote to prove that she was not derivative, but to show that her work had some depth. You work at a university, Lokasenna; JBI is a graduate student. Your taste is somewhat esoteric, and you seem to think that everyone's should be. Or are you all annoyed at all the people who liked the books and made them huge bestsellers? It might be, in fact, that it's their accessibility that made them so popular. I still fail to see why that's so bad.

Wow, I'm impressed with both Drkshadow and JBI - I've only skimread their efforts, but it is clear both of them have a lot of interesting things to say. I will try to make time to read both of them thoroughly.

I just wanted to address some of Qimi's comments here. Perhaps it does not come across in cold, hard type, but my feelings towards Rowling are mostly of good natured benevolence - I find it very affirming that someone can make money out of writing!

Yes, I am an academic. Yes, my main literary diet consists of stories from 800-1300 years ago - fairly esoteric, even by the standards of those who study literature for a living. But, unlike many academics, I don't take myself at all seriously - it's simply too much effort. I LIKE fantasy literature - I'm currently rereading Raymond Feist's Magician for the first time in about a decade, and reasonably enjoying myself. I read and enjoy Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, Robert Jordan, Fritz Leibner, Lord Dunsaney, Ursula le Guin and (in small doses) George R. R. Martin. Are they GREAT literature? No. I would argue that the only fantasy writers who really deserve a place amongst the classics are William Morris and Tolkien, with C. S. Lewis and Ursula le Guin as possibilities - though I'm sure plenty of people would disagree with those choices as well. Does that stop me, or anyone else, enjoying mainstream fantasy literature? Of course not.

The trouble with books like the Potter series, which I would happily argue are inferior to the works of those listed above, is that their popularity causes them to polarise opinion. Or perhaps I should say that they cause people to polarise other's opinions. Having read the first five books only, I think that Harry Potter is 'alright'. It's not bad, but it's not great either. My 10 year old self thought the first book was incredible, but my 24 year old self would view it as adequete. The trouble is that expressing anything other than an absolute and all-encompassing love of Harry Potter is taken by the fan community as a savage and mean-spirited condemnation built almost entirely on a basis of literary snobbery and elitism. It makes objective literary criticism damn difficult - not unlike when one tries to discuss the literary merits of the Bible with evangelical Christians.

So, to sum up: I don't envy Rowling her wealth or her audience, and I don't think her series is particularly dreadful. I believe it to be somewhat formulaic, somewhat over-reliant on cliché, adequetely expressed and constructed but also rather unoriginal. The books are 'alright', but I believe there are better stories out there in the same genre... and I hope the readers of HP will find them.

[JBI]

The problem with Potter is as soon as you try to level real criticism at it there are a billion fans who come in with a backlash. You cannot discuss the book without being beaten by a barrage of silly statements about how you are bland or whatever.

As it is, I am an esoteric academic person. I read ancient Chinese documents varying from 3000 years ago to around 200 years ago, mostly all the primary sources I deal with are 1500 years old or older. But my critical training and reading is mostly in contemporary literatures. Even in Chinese I can discuss contemporary authors, having studied them to an extent, and read them to an extent. Likewise, in English I have a degree in English literature which gives me a pretty decent foundation (plus I have been an avid reader for almost a decade, averaging 3-500 pages a day in my prime).

I am, after all, one of the widest readers on this forum, in terms of geography. I am one of the few who reads the biggest body of literature in a single language, Chinese. I do not need to list qualifications, as they are pointless.

My point is, I have a critical framework that I use to evaluate texts. I have torn up Frankenstein before, despite its critical status, and have criticized any number of canonical authors. That does not mean I am dismissive, or rude, it means I am applying a critical judgment based on a critical reading.

Affirming Potter is good is one thing, arguing and demonstrating is another. Drkshadow seems the only one to demonstrate why he believes the text is good so far, and I have rebutted with why I think it is mediocre.

I do not care for the phenomenon, and the 100 year argument is of little importance to us now. I just believe the books are not at all that great in comparison. From that perspective, I feel it necessary only to give voice to a critical judgment against the wave of overpraisers.

I do not care that people read Potter - millions already have done so, including me. I care that people praise it as some bible for Children's literature. I believe Leguin sort of hinted at her own frustration. Rowling is not Judy Blume, she is not particularly original, yet she gets all this press as if she invented the genre. She pays little outright homage to the legions of other authors who paved the way for her, and the critics and children lauding her with overpraise are ignoring the fact that she is just one in a million of children's books, and isn't even the best they have to offer.

I grew up on the 1001 Nights, and on various Folklores. I loved Greek mythology and that really helped get me through childhood. Those are unmistakable classics of the imagination, regardless of age. But those are not as marketable to children, therefore they are pushed to the back of the shelf. That is the thing with which I have a problem.

[TheFifthElement]

I grew up on the 1001 Nights, and on various Folklores. I loved Greek mythology and that really helped get me through childhood. Those are unmistakable classics of the imagination, regardless of age. But those are not as marketable to children, therefore they are pushed to the back of the shelf. That is the thing with which I have a problem.

But why exactly? That's what I'm struggling to understand throughout all of the debate. That the Harry Potter books are not 'great' is not so big a deal. They are, to a large extent, enjoyable and it a true that many, many people have enjoyed them. Some of those people have gone on to read 'better' literature, others haven't. So what?

Much has been said of the 'greatness' of Alice, but actually as a piece of children's fiction it is not that great. I read both the Alice books to my daughter about 12 months ago - she was 7 at the time. Most of the 'humour' was lost on her and I was surprised at how poorly the books hung together as a story; it felt more like a series of anecdotes and an exercise in cleverness than a story. My daughter found them boring. Equally we tried reading Harry Potter and she found that boring too. On the other hand we read Winnie the Pooh, the Moomintrolls and various Roald Dahl books and she enjoyed them immensely, as did I. They were a joy to read, very much unlike Alice. When she reads to herself, those are the kinds of books she turns to. But in the talk of children's 'classics' of these only Dahl has been mentioned.

Sometimes I think that as adults we get wrapped up in the vague memories of the stories we loved as children, and forget the specifics of how those stories came to us. I, for one, absolutely loved the Chronicles of Narnia, and as an adult I still think that the series is broadly good. But reading The Horse and His Boy to my son was a trial because it is poorly written and full of self-important clap-trap. For a large part of it we had to accompany the reading with a dictionary (every time the Telmarines speak) which not surprisingly impaired the reading of the story. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is clearly derived from Christian doctrine and the throwing in of Plato's 'forms' at the end of the final book is clumsy and comes across as a poor afterthought to tie the books together. The series is also chock full of racist and gender stereotypes and cliches, but yet the series is still held up as a 'classic' of children's literature. As a child I loved the Greek myths and I also read Treasure Island, The Swiss Family Robinson, Robinson Crusoe but actually the versions I read were abridged and simplified because it was apparent from when we tried to read Treasure Island to my son that the archaic language was a significant barrier to his understanding, and enjoyment, of the book. This was not a poor reflection of his reading or comprehension skills, but rather an illustration to me that what I read as a child was not the real deal. I'd imagine, JBI, that you didn't read the full, unabridged version of 1001 Nights as a child. It is not exactly children's literature, given its highly sexual content.

I wonder how many people contributing to this thread are actively reading to children, or working with children to help them select books to read and develop a love of, or at least an interest in, reading? I know Qimi teaches, as she has said, and perhaps understands better than most the struggle to encourage reading in children. I would like to see my children develop a love of 'great' literature, but the one thing I have discovered is that trying to force what is deemed to be canonical or 'great' literature onto them is actually most likely to switch them off. And where we're measuring the 'greatness' or otherwise of children's literature, leaving the child part out of it totally misses the point.

Of course this assumes that reading literature is important. I'm yet to be convinced of that. My kids read a lot, but they're more drawn to factual books that fiction.

[mona amon]

JBI, not everyone can express their reasons for liking a book (or disliking a book) as well as you and darkshadow did. And did you really write that all from your cellphone? :crazy:

Just one thing - I feel you are criticizing them for not being a certain type of book, instead of criticizing them for the books that they are. Even if it's true that Harry is very much the same character at the end of book 7 as he is at the beginning of book 1, I don't see why that's an objection. It is not a single novel of the bildungsroman type. It is a series of 7 adventure + school stories for kids. From a convincing 11 year old boy at the beginning of Philosopher's Stone, he grows into a convincing 17 year old at the end of the series, so there must have been some changes along the way. True he didn't have to overcome his own demons. The main interest of the book lies in his overcoming external obstacles, and I really don't see anything wrong with that.

I've haven't read Le Guinn or any of the authors mentioned recently as being superior to the HP books. I hate the fantasy genre, except for the LOTR movies, and of course HP, but I really fail to see what all the fuss is about. Why does it have to be HP vs all these other books, and not HP and all these other books? There are only 7 HP books after all. Rowling did not flood the market the way Enid Blyton did, with her 800 odd books. When I was a kid I read fairy tales, folk tales, arabian nights, Arthurian legends and greek myths retold for kids, comics, Indian mythology in comic book form, etc and Enid Blyton, Enid Blyton and more Enid Blyton. Now as an adult, I feel I've got good literary taste, so they certainly didn't do me any harm.

EDIT: Good post, FifthElement! :iagree:

[YesNo]

The problem with Potter is as soon as you try to level real criticism at it there are a billion fans who come in with a backlash. You cannot discuss the book without being beaten by a barrage of silly statements about how you are bland or whatever.

...

My point is, I have a critical framework that I use to evaluate texts. I have torn up Frankenstein before, despite its critical status, and have criticized any number of canonical authors. That does not mean I am dismissive, or rude, it means I am applying a critical judgment based on a critical reading.


I don't see "a billion fans" opposing your comments, JBI. Now, if you are truly engaged in "real criticism", why do you not speak truthfully? Or, is this, perhaps, the standards of your discipline?

If truthfulness is not part of your "critical framework", I don't see it as valuable and I can dismiss it right now. Of course, I am aware that you are exaggerating, but if you are claiming to do something more than engaging in polemics, you should never exaggerate. It discredits any valid point you might have to make.

[qimissung]

Thank you, Lokasenna. Thank you, JBI.

Actually, I think you said it very well, Mona. And I agree: way to go, FifthElement! Discerning and insightful, as usual.

Concerning Fifth's remarks, that's kind of where I'm coming from concerning the books overall. Kids should have a wide range of literature to choose from, than we adults need to get out of the way and let them read.

We all love reading and we came to it a long time ago. Do any of you remember what brought you to that first encounter? I imagine you do, precisely because it made an impression on you.

Last year I had my students-made them, really-read for the first ten minutes of class. They could read whatever they wanted, but it had to be a book, and it couldn't be anime. The first time we went to the library they did not know how to choose a book that they liked. It was something they learned fairly quickly, because if they didn't like it they were stuck with it for awhile. It was interesting to watch them fumble through that. Mostly the girls liked the 'princess' books, or books of that ilk. The boys would pick up anything, initially, as long as it was short. :D

In a theoretical world, we would all prefer books that aim higher; but in the real world, as long as people are reading, I think that's the good thing.

[stlukesguild]

MM-I look forward to people picking out one sentence to pick on!

SLG-Somehow I would assume that such an approach would beneath JBI, JCamilo, and others that might disagree.

qimissung- Excuse me, but the word "stalk" should be "stock"-the phrase is 'stock characters.'

I guess such an approach isn't beneath qimi either.:rolleyes5:

[qimissung]

Excuse me, it's qimi, not quimi. :D

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Excuse me, but the word "stalk" should be "stock"-the phrase is 'stock characters.'
Wow.

Anyways, there're a lot of people asking JBI stuff like, "Why is it such a big deal that the HP series is so popular and other stuff is being read?" I'm so sick of questions like these--asking people why they have opinions on a damn MESSAGE BOARD. Why is it so important to you all that HP isn't criticized and recognized as a great piece of literature? It's the same question, and just as irrelevant, especially in the context of a forum.

I don't really get the viewpoint of some of the HP supporters. At one point they admit to what HP really is--light and entertaining reading aimed at kids and young adults. But then, when someone criticizes the books because of that (and yes, that's a legitimate criticism), you're all up in arms about it. From this viewpoint, HP naysayers can't win, because it's just a never-ending circle. We criticize it, and you just answer, "so?"

Seriously, when will people learn that what they like isn't necessarily good, and that the very act of liking it somehow gives that something an objective worth? It's a juvenile mindset.


I don't see "a billion fans" opposing your comments, JBI. Now, if you are truly engaged in "real criticism", why do you not speak truthfully? Or, is this, perhaps, the standards of your discipline?

If truthfulness is not part of your "critical framework", I don't see it as valuable and I can dismiss it right now. Of course, I am aware that you are exaggerating, but if you are claiming to do something more than engaging in polemics, you should never exaggerate. It discredits any valid point you might have to make.
So, how long did it take you to find one ultra-flimsy excuse to dismiss all of what JBI said? Part of criticism, or any writing, is the aspect of rhetoric. JBI uses several rhetorical statute goes to make his points, just as EVERYONE (including you) does on here. Seriously, if the best example you can find of JBI being dishonest is him saying "1 billion fans," that's pretty pathetic. But, it serves its purpose: you don't have to bother attempting to refute anything JBI says anymore, do you?

Thank for making me look like a psychic by picking out one little thing JBI said to pick on, though. Bravo!

MM-I look forward to people picking out one sentence to pick on!

SLG-Somehow I would assume that such an approach would beneath JBI, JCamilo, and others that might disagree.

qimissung- Excuse me, but the word "stalk" should be "stock"-the phrase is 'stock characters.'

I guess such an approach isn't beneath quimi either.:rolleyes5:

:lol:

[stlukesguild]

Loka-The trouble with books like the Potter series, which I would happily argue are inferior to the works of those listed above, is that their popularity causes them to polarise opinion. Or perhaps I should say that they cause people to polarise other's opinions. Having read the first five books only, I think that Harry Potter is 'alright'. It's not bad, but it's not great either. My 10 year old self thought the first book was incredible, but my 24 year old self would view it as adequete. The trouble is that expressing anything other than an absolute and all-encompassing love of Harry Potter is taken by the fan community as a savage and mean-spirited condemnation built almost entirely on a basis of literary snobbery and elitism. It makes objective literary criticism damn difficult - not unlike when one tries to discuss the literary merits of the Bible with evangelical Christians.

This is common across the internet forums. There are the hard-core fan-boys/girls (quite often young and rather inexperienced readers/viewers/listeners) who cannot allow for any criticism at all to be leveled toward their beloved work of genius... and as such they dismiss any such criticism as snobbish elitism. Worse yet... as we see here with the sad critiques of Lewis Carroll... that there is constantly a need to undermine some acknowledged classic in an attempt to raise their beloved masterwork. On the classical music forums there is an endless parade of young listeners who have fallen in love with Romanticism... and for whom Beethoven is the unrivaled genius. Any suggestion that the master is even slightly flawed... that his opera isn't that great and that his vocal music pales beside that of others... is taken as a vicious attack that must be responded to with insults leveled toward Mozart or Bach that are so absurd as to wholly undermine any merit of the individual's comments.

Much has been said of the 'greatness' of Alice, but actually as a piece of children's fiction it is not that great. I read both the Alice books to my daughter about 12 months ago - she was 7 at the time. Most of the 'humour' was lost on her and I was surprised at how poorly the books hung together as a story; it felt more like a series of anecdotes and an exercise in cleverness than a story. My daughter found them boring. Equally we tried reading Harry Potter and she found that boring too. On the other hand we read Winnie the Pooh, the Moomintrolls and various Roald Dahl books and she enjoyed them immensely, as did I. They were a joy to read, very much unlike Alice. When she reads to herself, those are the kinds of books she turns to. But in the talk of children's 'classics' of these only Dahl has been mentioned.

Sometimes I think that as adults we get wrapped up in the vague memories of the stories we loved as children, and forget the specifics of how those stories came to us. I, for one, absolutely loved the Chronicles of Narnia, and as an adult I still think that the series is broadly good. But reading The Horse and His Boy to my son was a trial because it is poorly written and full of self-important clap-trap. For a large part of it we had to accompany the reading with a dictionary (every time the Telmarines speak) which not surprisingly impaired the reading of the story. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is clearly derived from Christian doctrine and the throwing in of Plato's 'forms' at the end of the final book is clumsy and comes across as a poor afterthought to tie the books together. The series is also chock full of racist and gender stereotypes and cliches, but yet the series is still held up as a 'classic' of children's literature. As a child I loved the Greek myths and I also read Treasure Island, The Swiss Family Robinson, Robinson Crusoe but actually the versions I read were abridged and simplified because it was apparent from when we tried to read Treasure Island to my son that the archaic language was a significant barrier to his understanding, and enjoyment, of the book. This was not a poor reflection of his reading or comprehension skills, but rather an illustration to me that what I read as a child was not the real deal. I'd imagine, JBI, that you didn't read the full, unabridged version of 1001 Nights as a child. It is not exactly children's literature, given its highly sexual content.

I could say that as a teacher I have witnessed more than a small number of children who were familiar with and loved the Alice stories by Lewis Carroll... but I don't think that judging the work as "children's literature" is at all what this debate has been about. Seriously, the question as to whether reading Harry Potter is "good" or "bad" for children... or whether it leads to the young reader moving on to greater books is a non-issue... or at least wholly unrelated to the literary merits of these books. The question is not whether the Harry Potter novels are good literature for children, but rather whether they are good... or rather "great" literature period.

Over the years the Arabian Nights, the fables of the Brothers Grimm, stories by Edgar Allen Poe, E.T.A. Hoffmann, Robert Lewis Stevenson, Gulliver's Travels, Dickens, etc... have been popular with children and young readers... but they are not merely... or even primarily "children's literature". How many children could possibly handle the antiquated vocabulary (among other things) in Gulliver's Travels or Robinson Crusoe? How many could get through The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn... let alone grasp the satire and the comments on racism? As you point out... just how appropriate is an unexpurgated Arabian Nights... or even the Bible for that matter... for children? A good many of the narratives of the Bible are read by children and some even take a simple fable-like form... but no one would think to call the Bible a work of "children's literature". The works of literature popular with younger readers that have entered into the canon of classic literature are those that function on more than the level of the child reader.

As Lokasenna has suggested above, no one among the "detractors" has suggested that the Harry Potter novels are "horrible or the worst things ever written. Rather the criticism has mostly been to suggest that (gasp!) they aren't "great literature"... indeed they're quite likely just OK... and that there are any number of books that are just as good... and some that are far better. There has also been the suggestion... which most would think was obvious... that the attention afforded to these books owes far more to marketing and the temporal fad than to any literary superiority in comparison with a wealth of other books. But we have even had the suggestion made that popularity in itself is the ultimate measure of artistic merit.

I don't see "a billion fans" opposing your comments, JBI. Now, if you are truly engaged in "real criticism", why do you not speak truthfully? Or, is this, perhaps, the standards of your discipline?

If truthfulness is not part of your "critical framework", I don't see it as valuable and I can dismiss it right now. Of course, I am aware that you are exaggerating, but if you are claiming to do something more than engaging in polemics, you should never exaggerate. It discredits any valid point you might have to make.

Please! JBI's opinion hold far more weight and are afforded far more respect than that of 99% of the participants on this site for the simple reasons that his opinions are based in a broad, intelligent, and insightful reading experience. Your opinions, on the other hand, are about as useful as those of the pimply-faced teenage boy who's voluntarily read three books in his life and thinks "Shakespeare sucks". You speak of "standards"... and yet all you can offer is some pathetic critique of single example of hyperbole than any intelligent reader would recognize as rhetorical?

Excuse me, it's qimi, not quimi.:biggrin5:

I don't know what you're talking about, qimi.:biggrin5:

[Emil Miller]

Personally I've had far too much Tequila .....
But perhaps just enough to make Harry Potter palatable.:D

Does anyone know where I can get some Tequila ?

[Drkshadow03]

JBI did a pretty good job at addressing some of my points actually. His argument against my comments on the racial theme and various other details are BS. But his counter on whether the characters change are more interesting. I would have to re-read the novels to respond to some of his points, which I'm not doing right now.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Ugh. Fanboism, 'tis a plague of the internet. They are the perfect example of what I'm talking about--people who over-value their own opinion. Not that we have anyone on here who I'd truly classify as a fanboy--no one here is that fanatical.

Of course, there is the inverse of the fanboy, the hater, who likes to look at something either quite popular or well recognized critically and proclaim it THE WORST MOVIE/BOOK/BAND OF ALL TIME. Just go to the IMDB forums to see some of them; they're everywhere.



I don't see "a billion fans" opposing your comments, JBI. Now, if you are truly engaged in "real criticism", why do you not speak truthfully? Or, is this, perhaps, the standards of your discipline?

If truthfulness is not part of your "critical framework", I don't see it as valuable and I can dismiss it right now. Of course, I am aware that you are exaggerating, but if you are claiming to do something more than engaging in polemics, you should never exaggerate. It discredits any valid point you might have to make.

Please! JBI's opinion hold far more weight and are afforded far more respect than that of 99% of the participants on this site for the simple reasons that his opinions are based in a broad, intelligent, and insightful reading experience. Your opinions, on the other hand, are about as useful as those of the pimply-faced teenage boy who's voluntarily read three books in his life and thinks "Shakespeare sucks". You speak of "standards"... and yet all you can offer is some pathetic critique of single example of hyperbole than any intelligent reader would recognize as rhetorical?


JBI did a pretty good job at addressing some of my points actually. His argument against my comments on the racial theme and various other details are BS. But his counter on whether the characters change are more interesting. I would have to re-read the novels to respond to some of his points, which I'm not doing right now.
Agreed. I really think JBI is a genius, if not misguided in his opinions from time-to-time (:D). I don't ever debate with him, at least not with the attention of winning. I disagree with him a lot, and sometimes he can annoy me to no end, but he's one of this forums most valuable members when it comes to discussing literature.

[Drkshadow03]

A couple of points. I've never argued HP is a flawless work. In fact, in addition to some of my praise, I also have outright stated some of the work's flaws. You know, good critical practice.




Agreed. I really think JBI is a genius, if not misguided in his opinions from time-to-time (:D). I don't ever debate with him, at least not with the attention of winning. I disagree with him a lot, and sometimes he can annoy me to no end, but he's one of this forums most valuable members when it comes to discussing literature.

Well, there are many details in the argument that JBI makes that are just wrong, weird, or misreadings of my points.

Basically his argument against my reading of the racial themes is:

1) You're using a big technical word and I don't like that.

2) Other texts are mimetic and have things to say about the world too.

3) My reading is a bland allegory, which, as I note below, is a misunderstanding of my reading.

Here are the more detailed responses to those particular points:


You are just going jargon heavy by a bunch of weird academic practices. The texts may fit into a genre that is popular in fantasy, but they are not connected to the genre of fantasy in the sense that someone like Orson Scott Card.

If the term “mystery” had appeared instead of Wainscot, would anyone accuse me of being jargon heavy? You need to read more criticism and theory if you think my post could remotely be called jargon-heavy in any shape or form. I was using a specific term to add necessary precision to the discussion. In this case, I was describing a work's genre because as I develop the argument it helps us understand how the work functions and can help us ascertain if the work is performing its function well. Meanwhile your line about Card is name-dropping. You don't do anything with it by unpacking it.


I bet Rowling has never read much contemporary fantasy, and to try to root her in a tradition of criticism that basically is over another tradition of literature is iffy - her extent of Fantasy literature does not include much written after the 60s, with the vast amount being written much earlier. You know this.

Let’s look at the nature of this argument: you open with speculation (I bet she never read . . .). Follow it up with a declaration (this is iffy, which is a wonderful critical term, by the way). Then end by elaborating on your opening speculation from line 1 by giving a more specific iteration of it, claiming that you think her knowledge of fantasy literature doesn't extend beyond the 60s, meanwhile you offer no particular examples of contemporary fantasies that seems to be absent from her work or proof for that matter that she doesn’t have knowledge of contemporary fantasy.


As for the genre acting as a form of memisis[sic]- well no doubt, it isn't the first text to do that. Gulliver's travels functions in the same way - heck, More's Utopia does the same thing. It's not exactly a new concept. My problem then, is that in general most good literature functions in this manner. It is not unique to fantasy to offer a critique as a form of escape from the contemporary - the didactic reading of Potter is one of rather bland allegory.

Most texts are mimetic or didactic: realist or otherwise. But to be fair, given the texts you chose, you clearly have in mind the idea of a separate world serving as a mirror and commentary on our old one. I'm not disagreeing it has been done before, but so what? This doesn’t suggest lack of originality rather it suggests an effective technique that continues to be interesting (a trope rather than a cliché if you will). By situating Potter in a particular sub-genre, it naturally would follow that other works besides Potter would fit into the genre too. Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman would be another example of Wainscot.

Realist fiction, too, can comment on the world. Never said it couldn't. What I did point out is that fantasizing these elements can add a new objectivity through its inventiveness for readers entrenched in their own world and values that can be more difficult to achieve in realist fiction. Gulliver's Travels actually demonstrates this point wonderfully. Would it have been as effective if Swift just did a more straight-forward realist novel about colonial travels? Sure, there are some novels about the topic that adopt a realist mode, which prove effective in their critique. However, Swift’s novel is particularly powerful in its exaggerated fantastical elements that it uses to address the topic.

I never suggested Potter is an allegory on racism. To use Tolkien's term, it is applicable. The racial themes are an inherent part of the plot lines, characterization, and conflict. They are connected to many of the other themes I mentioned in my recent post. Take for example, Slughorn who I mentioned as being an example of the kindly white person who doesn’t want to admit they might be a little racist. There is much more to his character than this aspect. We see a Slytherin who doesn’t seem particularly bad and who doesn’t support the Death Eater ideology. He cultivates students in an exclusive club, based on fame and talent, regardless of house or pure blooded status. Much like his denial of his racial outburst, he is in denial that he helped Voldemort achieve immortality, suggesting he is a character who sees and remembers what he wants and cultivates a certain image. The real point here being that there is more to the character than just what he represents in regards to the racial themes and we shouldn’t read Potter as an allegory and no one has suggested we should.

I see the thematic purpose of literature as a process of defamiliarizing us, not just in its language, but also in its approach to deeper social issues, so that we can see these issues in a new light. Potter is not didactic in that it merely is teaching us racism is bad. Rather if you read my point carefully I suggested it shows us in an inventive way that racism is arbitrary by situating it in a parallel fantasy world with a different racial logical, which is far more interesting and rich than simple allegory.


-----------------------------------------------------

JBI makes false either/or arguments at times: "If Rowling is using caricature, using these Tristan like characters, or these Sigfreid-like characters, then we cannot make the argument that these characters mature, or develop."

Because caricatures can't change or mature? Then what does Scrooge do exactly in A Christmas Carol? Caricature needs not equate to static.

--------------------------------------------

It's harder for me to address whether Harry changes or not, the part where I feel JBI might have a point, without actually reading through all the books again. I skimmed the first book and felt perhaps he might have a point here. I'd like to re-read the Potter books someday, but not now as I'd rather spend my limited time reading Wallace Stevens Collected Poems right now.

So basically I stand by the majority of my points in the original essay. There is a lot of interesting things happening in Potter and its these elements that many readers find endearing and many critics as well.

[JCamilo]

Scrooge was ready to be the scrooge of first page since day one, DS. The archetype character learns - Ulysses misses home, Sharyar stops killing people, but are the change are not the inquisitive change that happens in Hamlet character which goes questioning his actions on every momment. Again, I do not think you need to have a Dostoievisky in a Hat, Alice is a stable character, works perfectly. The point is that you cannot build an argument on Rowling use of stock characters then claim they are dynamic characters. Either one or another. (And I think one of the success reasons is that she treats the reader, her public, as a dynamic public, not her text).

[TheFifthElement]

Wow.

Anyways, there're a lot of people asking JBI stuff like, "Why is it such a big deal that the HP series is so popular and other stuff is being read?" I'm so sick of questions like these--asking people why they have opinions on a damn MESSAGE BOARD. Why is it so important to you all that HP isn't criticized and recognized as a great piece of literature? It's the same question, and just as irrelevant, especially in the context of a forum.

I don't really get the viewpoint of some of the HP supporters. At one point they admit to what HP really is--light and entertaining reading aimed at kids and young adults. But then, when someone criticizes the books because of that (and yes, that's a legitimate criticism), you're all up in arms about it. From this viewpoint, HP naysayers can't win, because it's just a never-ending circle. We criticize it, and you just answer, "so?"

Seriously, when will people learn that what they like isn't necessarily good, and that the very act of liking it somehow gives that something an objective worth? It's a juvenile mindset.


I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to try and establish on what basis JBI, or in fact any other posting here, is making their value judgement of the books, particularly where it's directly in response to a statement that has made. After all, in order to value the 'objective worth' of something, as you state it, it is first necessary to establish what the purpose of that thing is as only if you define the purpose can you measure it's success against it. The word 'great' in itself has a varied meaning and you can't assume that people are judging the work on the same set of requirements. So in this thread it might be safe to assume that Yes/No judges a successful book on reach, whereas JBI judges it as an art form, but it's always dangerous to assume, in my opinion, what's in the mind of others. Better to ask, no? After all this is a forum which is in essence a place in which ideas can be discussed. Hard to discuss without asking questions.

So: what is the point of literature? Against which measures is it to be judged? Which measures carry more weight. Is it primarily to be judged as an art form? How does this then work for factual works like A Brief History of Time or biographical works like The Worst Journey in the World, for example? Is it to be judged on how well it communicates its ideas, its clarity. Is it to be judged on enjoyment? Is it to be judged on success and if so how do you define success - is that sales, reach, longevity, ongoing influence, etc etc etc. Take it down a level to the specific book in question and the questions are wider - is HP to be judged against all literature or just children's literature. If just children's literature, what makes children's literature a success? Is it that it is good for both children and adults, as has been suggested, or originality? Is it readability? Is it that it how much it encourages children to go on to read more, and more varied works, etc, etc, etc.

To my mind, it's impossible to talk about 'objective judgement' without setting down first the basis on which you're judging it. How can you say what something is 'worth' if you don't first set out what its values are?

[Aylinn]

JCamilo It is completely fine to make a stagnant character or even to make a character who goes through regression, but Rowling clearly tried to make a story about a boy who matures, and failed miserably at doing it.

[Drkshadow03]

I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to try and establish on what basis JBI, or in fact any other posting here, is making their value judgement of the books, particularly where it's directly in response to a statement that has made. After all, in order to value the 'objective worth' of something, as you state it, it is first necessary to establish what the purpose of that thing is as only if you define the purpose can you measure it's success against it. The word 'great' in itself has a varied meaning and you can't assume that people are judging the work on the same set of requirements. So in this thread it might be safe to assume that Yes/No judges a successful book on reach, whereas JBI judges it as an art form, but it's always dangerous to assume, in my opinion, what's in the mind of others. Better to ask, no? After all this is a forum which is in essence a place in which ideas can be discussed. Hard to discuss without asking questions.

So: what is the point of literature? Against which measures is it to be judged? Which measures carry more weight. Is it primarily to be judged as an art form? How does this then work for factual works like A Brief History of Time or biographical works like The Worst Journey in the World, for example? Is it to be judged on how well it communicates its ideas, its clarity. Is it to be judged on enjoyment? Is it to be judged on success and if so how do you define success - is that sales, reach, longevity, ongoing influence, etc etc etc. Take it down a level to the specific book in question and the questions are wider - is HP to be judged against all literature or just children's literature. If just children's literature, what makes children's literature a success? Is it that it is good for both children and adults, as has been suggested, or originality? Is it readability? Is it that it how much it encourages children to go on to read more, and more varied works, etc, etc, etc.

To my mind, it's impossible to talk about 'objective judgement' without setting down first the basis on which you're judging it. How can you say what something is 'worth' if you don't first set out what its values are?

I think this sort of brings the entire thread back full circle. There isn't exactly completely objective judgement, but one shouldn't assume that means anything goes either; there is intersubjective judgement. This doesn't mean majority rules, however; after all, the larger intersubjective audience consists not just of this time period, but the larger educated readership throughout many time periods. Some readers are more experienced and more insightful, and more experienced reader's "votes" count more. Although, both these qualities can be developed. Many of the same readers notice many of the same good and bad qualities in a work. While, one of the reasons to read criticism, is precisely to see things that perhaps you might have missed and to get another take.

Also, there is providing evidence from a text to support an argument rather than relying solely on the power of one's own authority.

[JCamilo]

I do not know about miserably, Aylinn, or if we should use the word failed. But sure, her handling of the stock characters must be better analysed and not praised so highly.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think Drk is a genius, too. :D

I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to try and establish on what basis JBI, or in fact any other posting here, is making their value judgement of the books, particularly where it's directly in response to a statement that has made. After all, in order to value the 'objective worth' of something, as you state it, it is first necessary to establish what the purpose of that thing is as only if you define the purpose can you measure it's success against it. The word 'great' in itself has a varied meaning and you can't assume that people are judging the work on the same set of requirements. So in this thread it might be safe to assume that Yes/No judges a successful book on reach, whereas JBI judges it as an art form, but it's always dangerous to assume, in my opinion, what's in the mind of others. Better to ask, no? After all this is a forum which is in essence a place in which ideas can be discussed. Hard to discuss without asking questions.


It's not that I think it's wrong to ask people why they have the opinion the have, but trying to use that question (constantly) to tear down someone's credibility, arguments, etc., is just getting so tired.

[JBI]

First of all: My use of the Jargon-Heavy was meant to point that we are putting it in a critical context as if it has intended to do these things as themselves. For instance, lots of fantasy takes place in parallel worlds, is Rowling using this device in the tradition of the device's use, or is she separate from the tradition, and using this device as something devoid of tradition. Fantasy, as you know, as a genre is only about 200 years old. It emerged out of fairy tales and later solidified into Victorian children's literature. Pulp novels kept it floating in many ways in the early 20th, and by the 50s it had Tolkien.

20 years after, the idea of it as a marketable genre kicked off. Of course, with a new concept of genre as a separate form, a new criteria of judgment emerged. We have terminology, encyclopedias, histories, and yes, courses and research on the specific genre. My question though, is does Rowling actually belong to this genre at all, or is she more rooted in early forerunners, who saw themselves as a continuation of the fairy-tale, myth-makers of the early 19th century. She would seem to be more in line with C. S. Lewis, not a fantasy author, than with Raymound E. Feist. The problem of genre then emerges, in that she is not, from my reading, even aware of the genre.

The genre as a form of judgment came up with its own criteria and scholarship as a form of legitimation. A genre exists because it sees itself as different. So we invented a new vocabulary to state the difference. I am more than capable to look up the word, which I did, but that wasn't my point. You are putting the text into a critical framework where it does not necessarily belong. I see no reason to put it there, when it can easily be put into any other frame, for instance, the tradition of More, the tradition of Swift, the tradition of Victorian schoolday books. Heck, even Treasure Island functions on this trope, and its opening poem invites the reader to play a Harry in these wild away-from-school adventures.

That being said, we can put it in a context, but we must realize pretty much all fiction does this. We can apply critical terms to it, but there must be a reason for doing so. Categorization implies there is something inferred from a unique trait.

As for the racial themes, I will just argue with more of the text, rather than address the specifics you mentioned about whether or not it is an allegory. My argument would be it fails. Though the magical world is, shall we say, divided between those worthy and unworthy, there is clearly a very unworthy world. The muggles are dismissed as freaks from the beginning, and though are studied as a curiosity, as one would study an animal, they are always regarded as being beneath. The janitor, for instance, is what they call a squib, and treated by the magical world as mentally impaired.

But beyond that, there exists something within the magical world that creates this major problem. That of class and its influence on race allegory. The rich are all racist, whereas the poor aren't. Slytherin may be pureish in blood (there exists a little "mud" in everyone, the text argues), but they are also the richest, and most connected. Malfoy has a manner, and has a hereditary slave. The others wear nicer stuff, and enjoy more money. As if all rich people are racist, and all poor people are good little innocent christians.

We cannot then read it as the same time as a class allegory, or class-conflict novel, and racial-conflict novel. Simply put, if it is a racial conflict novel, then the hatred and divisions between good are bad are between those racist and not racist. If it is a class conflict novel, then the divisions are between those who are an old elite, who think sharing the wealth with new emerging people is a crime.

I would say this is a flaw in the novel, in the sense that half the novels divide over class, and half divide over race. The first novel is undoubtedly divided over class. The idea of race never enters the question.

You are of noble blood, to Slytherin, of middle-class family upbringing, Ravenclaw, of emerging middle-class blood, Gryphondor, and all the poor bums to Hufflepuff. There is a clear divide, and Harry, being of actual noble birth through his parents, and his huge pile of cash in his bank, decides to break protocol and associate with the middle class, and renounce is class superiority in favor of friendship and loyalty, and overall comfort.

The next novel introduces this idea of "blood", which is completely absent from other novels. It here can be interpreted as "poor" or "unworthy" but not racially, class-wise. You are new money, etc. It gets corrupted when it attempts to cross over into race, because race is such a weird term in England and in the novels. Does Malfoy hate Hermione because of her race or her class? A good question. She is clearly lower-class in his terms, and when Malfoy's father sees her parents, he basically thinks them the worst kind of low-class bumpkins, uncultured and stupid.

Now, lets say this was taking place in Harrow, or in any other number of private schools in the world. It would not be out of place to see a similar class conflict. I have seen my classmates in China rip on each other for not being rich, or for their parents not being party members, or not having the right ID card. It is worse in younger people here, where the parents compete over who picks their kids up in nicer cars. England and Harvard are similar. You have money, you go to Harrow, you go to Oxford, you inherit. There are always those who didn't go to harrow in Oxford though, and always those who are not as rich in Harrow, which forms the conflict - Hermione is not from the rich background, she is hated, and others think she is invading her school.

Book three continues this, with Malfoy and friends trying to kill the hippogryph, and them almost getting away with it because of class-connections. The executioner is Malfoy's dad's friend. He probably has the best lawyers, etc. That is what is implied - the class-conflict continues.

Book four seems to be keeping with this too, the idea of racism or even classicism barely enters the text in the way it did in the first two. Instead it is about adventures more. The book gets thicker, a tradition repeated later, and we have a text more about education and adventures, that does not explore these themes.

Next we have book 5, where it reemerges, but not to the extent in book 2. It is still a class thing - the rich girls make fun of Hermione, for instance. The idea of race, as it is, is overshadowed by the idea of class.

Book 6 - here we have an about-face of sorts. Class and race begin to cross in the form of Snape. Snape is noble, but only half-noble - a Half-blood-prince, meaning half a prince. This is when the idea of race and blood get added, but it is still in keeping with the British sense of hereditary lines - think of Richard II's line in shakespeare: "Not all the water in the rough rude sea / Can wash the balm from an anointed king."

That is how the idea of race actually enters the text, in a conflict between money, and class, class in the English mentality as being horribly hereditary. What we see as a race conflict is merely a conflict of class. The poor plebeians, the muggles, are always absent and in the dump, and they are always abused by the magical elite. The wizards amongst themselves are class divided, and each represent a fundamental part of England.

I think we as North Americans are not predisposed to see class in the British sense, but something like this in any number of British texts is common place. The idea of the hereditary class, for instance, is present in much of Victorian fiction, and even more present in older 18th century works. Tom Jones, as you will have it, has to be of noble birth, even though he is a foundling.

We like to think of this as about race, but is it actually? As an American, I can see how racial interpretations would be appealing - the US has been particularly hit by a history of racial dividing and segregation, and violence. But English history, especially immediate history, has, to my knowledge, always been more concerned with class. Class in England is ingrained in every level of culture.

So as you put it, it can be taken as an allegory, or just read as such, but my problem then, now upon reflection, is that it doesn't hold, and none of the issues are resolved. Voldemort dies, but the class issues remain, and are never fully developed.

Malfoy goes from rich slave owner to converted-cowardly-oppurtunist under a sense of guilt and after a change of fortune. He is like a factory owner who decides he cannot bear to whip his workers.

Slughorn in contrast is a rich calculating man, enjoying his power and connections through betting on his students - the best athletes, the best minds - knowing they will return profits in the form of gifts, connections, and reputation. He does not care about background, merely about what he will get in the long run, and he screws up by betting to highly on a student who turns out to be a psychopath. He feels guilty, in that he actually has an emotional connection to his students, or one student in particular, Harry's mother.

As for caricature, Scrouge would not be a good example. Dickens has a mix, usually his protagonist will be slightly dynamic, often through a deus ex machina reason, but his supporting characters will be completely flat. For instance, Hard Times - the characters are all flat, except for the father (whose name I forgot) who learns to stop being so calculating and obsessed with fact. Not much dimension in terms of character, but it serves Dickens well.

Rowling's supporting characters are also flat. They are cute, but they never say a line that they could not have said the first time they opened their mouth. The fat kid is the fat kid in book 1, who acts nobly despite being a buffoon - he does the same thing at the end of book 7. Malfoy is always Malfoy - a self-proud snob but a coward. All the teachers are always the same. There is nothing dynamic about anything there.

That being said, it is not necessary for that to happen - but the problem is Harry does not change, so the book does not really give me what I am looking for in a novel. If harry doesn't change, the plot has made no progress that matters. The plot merely functions as a filler for Harry's adventures, not his growth.

My use of other examples was mainly to point out that we cannot call these things original or unique, and therefore we cannot credit Rowling with being original or unique. I also wanted to point out that she wasn't even particularly clever at creating this alternative or using these devices, and others have done it better before.

The idea of evaluation against other books is not new, the same way we compare movies we like or dislike to other movies, or we compare action movies to other action movies, or television sitcoms to other sitcoms. We have a sort of general sense of what should be expected, and then we want to see the form manipulated to give us something interesting. IF all sitcoms knocked off Seinfeld to a point, nobody would watch sitcoms anymore, they would just watch Seinfeld.

The sitcom is an interesting example, in that each episode is required to do something new so that it remains interesting. You can have flat characters, like Seinfeld, but you need to manipulate them to create comedy.

If an episode, or a whole sitcom fails to do this though, then they are undoubtedly criticized for their lacking. They are held up, like everything to a standard based on comparison. IT is not wrong to hit Rowling with the tradition, because she is part of it, and must be judged by it. My remarks were there to dispel this belief that Rowling was an inventor. As Leguin put it, there is good in the books, but they are not original, or particularly imaginative.

Her real skill lies in the cuteness of her stuff - the magical frogs and beans, and such. It sort of reminds me of 18th century tea parties with all its quaintness. Is that enough to carry the books for me, well, not really. Maybe the first novel could have been well received, but the later volumes are progressively worse.

The first volume could have been interpreted as a continuation of this Victorian tradition, and therefore stood better from that context - but her decision to write 6 other of virtually the same novels was seriously a deterrent. She should have just rewritten the first one in 10 years to modernize it as this sort of fairy-tale morality-tale, and resolved the conflicts. Then we would have been spared a lot of this stuff. All the "good" if you will in these books is delivered and resolved in the first book.

[Drkshadow03]

I had a long response, but my browser crashed. So we'll make this succinct and quick.

1) Based on your long response about muggles, you still don't seem to understand how the racial themes work. The Muggle/Wizard divide is precisely what makes the arbitrariness of Wizarding racial ideology work. The readers are Muggles and for us the divide is between people who can do magic and people who can't, a mudblood and pure blood can perform magic equally, so when the ideology suggests one is not as good as the other it reveals just how arbitrary the racial ideology is precisely because they aren't different from our perspective. I disagree with how you think Muggles are portrayed; the ideologies of the villains are anti-Muggle, while the heroes in general are Pro-Muggle. The only time when characters study the culture of Muggles is with Mr. Weasley. The Mr Weasley episodes of exploring Muggle culture are comical and have little to do with the racial theme; the function of these episodes is similar to the Little Prince coming to different planets in Antoine de Saint Exupery's book and experiencing different elements of the "adult" world as an outsider (businessman, alcoholic, king, etc.), which unveils the strangeness and silliness of elements found in our everyday experience. That's what is happening there. Basically, you're fostering one misreading after another.

2) Sure, class plays a role, but the racial themes are more prominent. As far as a rich versus poor allegory. As already noted, the main hero is rich and from an old wizarding family and isn't part of Slytherin. Sirius Black would be another example. She's not writing allegory; she's writing fiction that deals and explore certain conflicts, but as already noted in fairly interesting ways. Also, there are hints of the racial theme even in the first book. Granted it appears most prominently in book 2 and the final volumes, and there are other issues explored, but its always there in the background of every book. I never said the racial theme is the ONLY theme or issue at stake in HP. Mudblood is very obviously a racial term. Malfoy clearly hates Hermione for her "race" and Weasley for his "class."


That's really the only points I was interested in addressing, although I'm not giving it the space and point by point that I did before my post got gobbled.

[JBI]

I am disagreeing. You are reading an allegory that I do not see in the text and dismissing my reading as secondary. I am reading it as a novel about class, you have somehow cOme to this conclusion that it is about race. I do not see thisas textually supportable.

The Weasleys are blood traitors, those who mingle with the lower new money classes. Hermione is one degree lower - she is from the bottom with no hereditary connection to the ruling classes. Harry is from a good Rich family, but makes the moral choice to associate with the bottomers.

[qimissung]

I am enjoying the back and forth between the two of you. Your essay is also vigorous and cogent, JBI.

[mona amon]

There is no simple correlation between race and class in the HP books.

Malfoys - Rich, upper class, pureblood
Harry - rich, upper class, half-blood
Gaunts - impoverished, pureblood, class?
Snape - poor, working class, half-blood
Voldy - poor, half-blood, class?
Weasleys - not much money, middle class, pureblood
Hermione - comfortably off, middle class, muggleborn (mudblood)
Lily - same as Hermione
and so on.

[Drkshadow03]

Well, I don’t feel there is much to address in your disagreement because mudblood and pure blood are clearly presented as racial terms:


The smug look on Malfoy's face flickered. "No one asked your opinion, you filthy Mudblood," he spat. Harry knew at once that Malfoy had said something really bad because there was an instant uproar at his words. Flint had to dive in front of Malfoy to stop Fred and George jumping on him, Alicia shrieked, "How dare you!" and Ron plunged his hand into his robes, pulling out his wand, yelling, "You'll pay for that one, Malfoy!" and pointing it furiously under Flint's arm at Malfoy's face."

Notice in this textual example the way people react as if Malfoy had spoken the N-word. There isn’t really a class equivalent. It is quite clear that Malfoy dislikes Hermione because she is a mudblood (a racial category), not strictly on grounds of class. Whereas in the first book, he rejects Weasley on class grounds, but accepts he is from a pure wizarding family.

I believe the racial "mudblood" term reappears in some shape or form in every book after the 2nd one. Therefore, we can conclude that the racial issues never disappear and always remain in the background of the story, even when the story is exploring other young adult issues in the forefront that I already mentioned: like trust, etc. Like I said, it’s a major theme, not the ONLY theme of the book series.

The class issues are there, but are more for background of characters. We see characters from all different classes among our heroes and villains. I would agree Rowling seems to be suggesting that the rich tend to be racist and they tend to be the villain, but as already noted there are quite a few examples of the rich not associated with Death Eaters along with the poor joining up with the Death Eaters. So a strict class reading isn't sustainable.

[Mr.lucifer]

If only, there were more respectful and intelligent debates like this in both real life and the internet.

[JBI]

Clearly? Is racism the only prejudice in the world? You are interpreting. It is not clearly stated.

The statements could easily be made of countryfolk, or of poor people. You are American, therefore you conceive of hate in racial terms, whereas an Englishman may conceive of it in terms of class.

Think of this as a contrast - No one asked your opinion, you ****ing peasant/pleb/hick/****. It could be any with the same reaction.

To her credit, fantasy allows her to create an allegory of hate without the clearly stating what is being hated. You interpret it as race, I think class is more fitting with the text and with the authors politics outside the text.

It's like a rich guy telling a girl she should shut her trap because she is a from a dump family. In England, the cross between hereditary titles and class is so ingrained that this is possible.

How dare you speak to me, I am of noble birth, from an old family. Or how dare you speak to me, I am white and you are black. The distinction is too difficult to hold. As you put it, it is clearly offensive, but the whole point is there is no appearance related advantage.

What is weird is the number of hereditary magical properties - Voldemort can talk to snakes through hereditary means - Tonks can transform through hereditary traits. IT seems that being pure blood has its advantage.

Now, upon reading the summary on Wikipedia of Dumbledore, I am presented with another idea, - is the conflict not the rich trying to purify their reign over the world (and muggles) as reassuring their class superiority in a war against emerging newer classes offending their authority? Is this not apparent in English history, from, for instance, The English Civil War? This is far more keeping with the tradition Rowling is working within. You are American, of course you are going to read race into it. You are not from the tradition of classicism like an English person is.

In fact, race is less apparent in English hierarchies than class. Class is everything in England, a country that has a queen simply due to her "pureblood" relationship to a deceased monarch. There have been things in English history described as class warefare. Read Engels' writings on the lower Class in Victorian England to get an idea, or Marx's Capital. The idea of class behaves differently in England. It performs itself in an hereditary fashion.

Ultimately, the text is not clear, as the weird distinction between muggle-born and pure-blood is so arbitrary that it is ridiculous - you are dealing with a group of ex-muggles and never-muggles. The never-poors dislike the new rich, because they challenge their crumbling authority, like how the new middle class destroyed the aristocracy in the late 18th and 19th century in England. They claimed the ground of money and authority, got seats in parliament, and began to displace the old families. The bottom still didn't change much, so the muggles, basically remain out of the contending. Such a time period led to much resentment, and yes, verbal abuse. The same can be said of systems in other places of the world, most apparently in places with class systems ingrained, like India, or China.

[JBI]

Clearly? Is racism the only prejudice in the world? You are interpreting. It is not clearly stated.

The statements could easily be made of countryfolk, or of poor people. You are American, therefore you conceive of hate in racial terms, whereas an Englishman may conceive of it in terms of class.

Think of this as a contrast - No one asked your opinion, you ****ing peasant/pleb/hick/****. It could be any with the same reaction.

To her credit, fantasy allows her to create an allegory of hate without the clearly stating what is being hated. You interpret it as race, I think class is more fitting with the text and with the authors politics outside the text.

It's like a rich guy telling a girl she should shut her trap because she is a from a dump family. In England, the cross between hereditary titles and class is so ingrained that this is possible.

How dare you speak to me, I am of noble birth, from an old family. Or how dare you speak to me, I am white and you are black. The distinction is too difficult to hold. As you put it, it is clearly offensive, but the whole point is there is no appearance related advantage.

What is weird is the number of hereditary magical properties - Voldemort can talk to snakes through hereditary means - Tonks can transform through hereditary traits. IT seems that being pure blood has its advantage.

Now, upon reading the summary on Wikipedia of Dumbledore, I am presented with another idea, - is the conflict not the rich trying to purify their reign over the world (and muggles) as reassuring their class superiority in a war against emerging newer classes offending their authority? Is this not apparent in English history, from, for instance, The English Civil War? This is far more keeping with the tradition Rowling is working within. You are American, of course you are going to read race into it. You are not from the tradition of classism like an English person is.

In fact, race is less apparent in English hierarchies than class. Class is everything in England, a country that has a queen simply due to her "pureblood" relationship to a deceased monarch. There have been things in English history described as class warefare. Read Engels' writings on the lower Class in Victorian England to get an idea, or Marx's Capital. The idea of class behaves differently in England. It performs itself in an hereditary fashion.

Ultimately, the text is not clear, as the weird distinction between muggle-born and pure-blood is so arbitrary that it is ridiculous - you are dealing with a group of ex-muggles and never-muggles. The never-poors dislike the new rich, because they challenge their crumbling authority, like how the new middle class destroyed the aristocracy in the late 18th and 19th century in England. They claimed the ground of money and authority, got seats in parliament, and began to displace the old families. The bottom still didn't change much, so the muggles, basically remain out of the contending. Such a time period led to much resentment, and yes, verbal abuse. The same can be said of systems in other places of the world, most apparently in places with class systems ingrained, like India, or China.

the conflict actually parallels class history in England rather well. Old-families (pure bloods) seeing their authority usurped by new families, new families moving into the ranks of the older families, and bottom families remaining poor and beaten.

There is a good book called The Crisis of the Aristocracy which deals with this historical phenomenon of the decline of aristocratic authority. The text can be read within this tradition, and seems more in keeping than with class conflict, which was never as significant in English history as in American history.

[Aylinn]

JCamilo miserably may be too harsh a word, but I still think that she failed at her attempt to do a proper character development. I don't mind, I liked these books for other reasons.

As for the evil and good division. It's clear that the bad people go to Slytherin (they all leave in the last book during the last battle) and the good people go to Gryffindor or other houses.

I didn't like the villains in Harry Potter. They consist of arrogant idiots or idiots. Voldy was supposed to be one of the most powerful magician, but the killing of one boy is for him an insurmountable obstacle and it seems that he tries very hard not to kill Potter, for example, by coming up with an overcomplicated plan or by finding a time to tell the story of his life when he can kill Potter in the fourth book.

[Drkshadow03]

Clearly? Is racism the only prejudice in the world? You are interpreting. It is not clearly stated.


While I'm not keen on turning to the author, Rowling has discussed these issues in multiple interviews. She does at times claim she wasn't trying to do a one for one allegory with Nazi Germany and you can see parallels to Stalinsim, and there is a lot of political Isms, she's trying to address in Potter via the Death Eaters, such as class, but has also stated that the blood purity laws in the wizard world are similar to Nazi blood purity laws. In other interviews she talked about the series in terms of race. All of this suggests she definitely had race in mind. So I'm not just reading it as an American, Rowling herself has suggested she meant to invoke race.

Your example of turning mudblood into a class issue is pushing the boundaries of common sense. In the series, the Death Eaters make clear that one Muggle grandparent disqualifies you as being pure blood. Sounds a lot like Nazi law and white American blood purity laws to me (1/8 drop of black blood means your black).

[JCamilo]

It is not hard, is it? Class and race are related in the past. (Not so far past). The house hierarchy from medieval ages was also based on supposed racial traits. There was low level classes simple based on ethinic birth in the past in several system. So, it may be race issues even if the book is not an "Alice Walker" kind of book.

Plus, I think, as the commercial success happened, she started to play more with other themes, which may just be part of the scennary at begining, but more interesting as the market grows. The suggestions of race may come from her understanding of her public - even the treatment is not as clear. She filled the book with school conflicts, I can see she trying to play with racism too.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Meh. The idea that the book uses its own allegory to represent racial prejudice is hardly new (and arguably quite tired) in the fantasy genre. It's how the books address and handle these themes that's important--merely throwing them in there without much though (and most fantasy does this) isn't very deep or thought provoking.

[mona amon]

There's no allegory representing racial prejudice. It is handled directly. Some wizards think they are better than the others, based on their blood purity, and Voldemort cashes in on that. It's thrown in there because Rowling wanted the magic world to be a true reflection of our own. "“I wanted Harry to leave our world and find exactly the same problems in the wizarding world. So you have the intent to impose a hierarchy, you have bigotry, and this notion of purity, which is this great fallacy, but it crops up all over the world. People like to think themselves superior and that if they can pride themselves in nothing else they can pride themselves on perceived purity." - J K Rowling

Drk's point is (I think) that when we see our own world in this magic mirror, it gives us a certain objectivity, just as allegory does, and shows up its absurdities much more effectively than any amount of direct preaching will do.

[JBI]

While I'm not keen on turning to the author, Rowling has discussed these issues in multiple interviews. She does at times claim she wasn't trying to do a one for one allegory with Nazi Germany and you can see parallels to Stalinsim, and there is a lot of political Isms, she's trying to address in Potter via the Death Eaters, such as class, but has also stated that the blood purity laws in the wizard world are similar to Nazi blood purity laws. In other interviews she talked about the series in terms of race. All of this suggests she definitely had race in mind. So I'm not just reading it as an American, Rowling herself has suggested she meant to invoke race.

Your example of turning mudblood into a class issue is pushing the boundaries of common sense. In the series, the Death Eaters make clear that one Muggle grandparent disqualifies you as being pure blood. Sounds a lot like Nazi law and white American blood purity laws to me (1/8 drop of black blood means your black).

Maybe for the last book. But it is not as strict as you put it. Snape is half-muggle. Voldemort is half-muggle - everyone is a little muddy.

The hitler allegory is kind of dry and cliche, and her use of it I attributed to the movie directors for the 7th film, but I guess it's explicit in the book too. It's kind of weak writing in my eyes.

That being said,the idea of race as I believed you were constructing it, would be in the North American sense. Being Jewish is not a racial thing.

So now we have a problem. Is Rowling paralleling Hitler, with the concept of Jew or Muggle as fundamentally different, and does she support such a divide? The muggles are not allowed at Hogwarts, they are studied as a curiosity, and live separate. They are "other" if you will, the same way the Jews, gypsies, and others become "other" in Nazi Germany. If we are reading this as racism, then we must accept there is a racial divide in the magical world.

The muggles are not the wizards. Muggle is not a pejorative, but they are clearly and fundamentally beneath and different. IF we were to take this as demonstrating racism, then this issue would need to be addressed properly. As it is there are any number of things to make us thing otherwise. For instance, the Black family tree is clearly a symbol of class and hereditary roots - the fundamental of British hierarchy and class keep in mind. He is on the tree, and those who marry commoners are cast out like the Duke of Windsor.

That would be your classical example about how the racial politics as you see them work - in terms of hereditary class. Queen Elizabeth in her day would not have been able to marry a commoner. Prince Charles married his cousin to keep the blood pure - this is English history, this is the War of the Roses legacy at its fullest. Blood in England is class, or at least was until recently. There were schools where you needed to be royal to go, and there were clubs for royalty.

This is the tradition Rowling is working in. The racial traits merely come in perhaps in the last 2 books to add a little bit of preachiness to the text. Basically slytherin is the royal house. For an American, I think you have a hard time understanding how class and blood have played a role in shaping the political and cultural structure of England.

Now, as for Race, that is trickier because anyone who studies racism will tell you that racial divides are arbitrary and meaningless. the Muggle-Magic divide is present from day 1 - the Dursleys are just muggles, Hermione`s parents are muggles, Ron`s dad works with muggles - they are like dismissed.

This is never resolved in the book - Hermione is un-mugglefied, one can say, as are other mud-bloods - those who have risen beyond their muggleness. The Slytherins think they aught not to, they come from the muggles so they should stay with the muggles. The question in the text then is not whether muggles are discriminated against for no reason, but rather whether one should or should not be able to be amongst the wizards if you have the ability to get past your muggleness.

The Hitler and nazi parallels are mere late appendices to a class-driven conflict. Let me remind you of other points.

Malfoy senior buys the whole Slytherin team new brooms, because they deserve it. Rich families, like the Blacks, have house slaves, and "manors" like the Slytherins, or even Voldemort's relatives. We have politically connected wizards from these old families too. We have also hereditary abilities in wizarding, and hereditary magical items that can be passed down as heirlooms.

The old blood, or pure Blood resembles class and royalty more than anything. You see it as race because you are programmed to think along racial lines, but there is nothing to indicate race, as much as their is to indicate a caste system over class. Muggles on the bottom, and no muggle-borns allowed to raise up - if you marry down, either a muggle or a muggle-born, then you are creating mud-bloods. IF you support them, then you are a blood-traitor. This is the system that still governs in certain countries of the world, and it has nothing to do with race, as in Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Whatever (race doesn't actually make sense outside a context of discrimination). This is also a conflict that rocked England for centuries.

Hitler was working with a new idea of race, which was rooted in obscure and violent misunderstandings of genetics and origins, and, also downright hatred. "Jew" is not a racial category, it is a religious category. Therefore it does not fit as an exact model - there were Jews on every level of German and European society, even members of the nobility. It's a big problem to try and play with race there, and how it fits to Harry Potter, in that muggles are not Wizards, and that fundamental divide is present throughout the text.

Now lets say she is paralleling Hitler and nazi policies - that does not mean we are dealing with race, we are just dealing with systematic hatred in the 20th century sense. I haven't read the last book, but I somehow doubt she switches to a case where Wizards and Muggles are not fundamentally different. She never breaks that divide.

So what is the resolution then? the idea of nobility as represented in pure Blood makes more sense for the first few novels, up until maybe 6 or 7. Snape even sees himself as half-nobility, given his father's racial superiority over his mother - he is a "prince", if you will. He is like the Bastard son of an aristocrat who lives with the fact that he will not inherit and be legitimate because he is not from the noble-wife. Maybe in the 7th one Rowling got carried away with racial categories and junk, but they aren't the determining factor in the books, and in fact, are often contradictory.

She is after all writing about class explicitly throughout much of the novels, and spent much of her new novel, if my understanding is correct, discussing class. If we want to talk about the author, the author has continuously supported social mobility, and even donated 1million pounds to the Labour party. Class is in her life, and is important in determining her politics. Therefore it is not a stretch to say the books are about class, and less about race. They borrow from race when the two link, because the way she set up the magical world, she cannot play out her morality tale about social class without touching on the overlap.

[Drkshadow03]

Drk's point is (I think) that when we see our own world in this magic mirror, it gives us a certain objectivity, just as allegory does, and shows up its absurdities much more effectively than any amount of direct preaching will do.

Yes, pretty much that. I'm not sure why JBI keeps whipping out the term allegory when I clearly don't mean allegory and explained why it's not an allegory. The fact that Voldemort and Snape are half-blood is there to reveal the hypocrisy of the whole idea of racial purity and fits perfectly well with the theme as I presented it.

I already addressed his point about the Muggle/Wizard divide:


The readers are Muggles and for us the divide is between people who can do magic and people who can't, a mudblood and pure blood can perform magic equally, so when the ideology suggests one is not as good as the other it reveals just how arbitrary the racial ideology is precisely because they aren't different from our perspective. I disagree with how you think Muggles are portrayed; the ideologies of the villains are anti-Muggle, while the heroes in general are Pro-Muggle. The only time when characters study the culture of Muggles is with Mr. Weasley. The Mr Weasley episodes of exploring Muggle culture are comical and have little to do with the racial theme; the function of these episodes is similar to the Little Prince coming to different planets in Antoine de Saint Exupery's book and experiencing different elements of the "adult" world as an outsider (businessman, alcoholic, king, etc.), which unveils the strangeness and silliness of elements found in our everyday experience. That's what is happening there. Basically, you're fostering one misreading after another.

It serves as part of the racial ideology, but not in an overly symbolic way. Instead it creates the genre contrast that I mentioned, which allows the racial parallel to work in the first place. However, in itself it shouldn't be read symbolically since the readers are muggles and aren't about to go: Oh my G-d, we're inferior! I need to persecute myself!

JBI then expresses his typical anti-Americanism with his bizarre comment: "For an American, I think you have a hard time understanding how class and blood have played a role in shaping the political and cultural structure of England."

As if all Americans do all day is eat donuts and watch TV and it's amazing we can even tie our own shoes, let alone know something about British history. Apparently for JBI A Passage to India is also strictly about class, not race.

[JBI]

You miss my point. If we are reading race into this, we must note that muggles are inferior to Wizards. Take your pick. We are muggles reading wizards, right, but we are still muggles - and muggles don't get portrayed well - The Dursleys, Voldemort's Dad, etc. - And they cannot go to hogwarts, they need to be brainwashed every time they get out of hand. How do you address this with your racial reading - they are just not special, or not worthy? They are not born with the talent? Or are you dismissing this as an overstatement, or is this just a kids book and not that intelligent.

What is a muggle, if not something non-wizardly. Some may be able to unmuggle themselves, and some wizards may be able to marry muggles, but they are still muggles. Is the lesson we need to learn to tolerate muggles, and live with the fact that some can get lucky and be "born with the ability" to become wizards?

[mona amon]

So now we have a problem. Is Rowling paralleling Hitler, with the concept of Jew or Muggle as fundamentally different, and does she support such a divide? The muggles are not allowed at Hogwarts, they are studied as a curiosity, and live separate. They are "other" if you will, the same way the Jews, gypsies, and others become "other" in Nazi Germany. If we are reading this as racism, then we must accept there is a racial divide in the magical world.

The muggles are not the wizards. Muggle is not a pejorative, but they are clearly and fundamentally beneath and different. IF we were to take this as demonstrating racism, then this issue would need to be addressed properly. As it is there are any number of things to make us thing otherwise. For instance, the Black family tree is clearly a symbol of class and hereditary roots - the fundamental of British hierarchy and class keep in mind. He is on the tree, and those who marry commoners are cast out like the Duke of Windsor. - JBI

A wizard is fundamentaly different from a Muggle in a way that one race can never be different from another, so you are right about that. However, it's clearly shown that the magical gene always predominates, so that nullifies any eugenic arguments based on that difference. It is clearly stated in book 2 that that there were so few wizards that they would have died out if they had not married Muggles.

When wizards marry Muggles, the children are always wizards. And even Muggleborns are the result of some magical ancestor somewhere in both the parents' bloodlines.

[JBI]

A wizard is fundamentaly different from a Muggle in a way that one race can never be different from another, so you are right about that. However, it's clearly shown that the magical gene always predominates, so that nullifies any eugenic arguments based on that difference. It is clearly stated in book 2 that that there were so few wizards that they would have died out if they had not married Muggles.

When wizards marry Muggles, the children are always wizards. And even Muggleborns are the result of some magical ancestor somewhere in both the parents' bloodlines.

The Janitor Filch is a squib. They have a word for the unworthies amongst the bunch.

[Sancho]

Okay then, to recap the thread thus far:

OP - Hey everybody, whaddaya think of this new book?
- Sux
- No it doesn't
- Yes it does
- It doesn't suck, you suck
- No I don't, and you're a moron
- Oh yeah, well, you can't even tie your own shoes
- Can too, and I heard your mother swims after troop ships
- She does not, and your mother's a syphilated whore

Moderator - People, People! No personal attacks, or I'll shut down this discussion.

- I suppose the book has some value
- Thank you, I knew you'd come around to reason
- For instance, it'd be valuable in an outhouse when you're out of TP
- Moron!
- Idiot!

Moderator - People!

- I read a review by a very important reviewer of books and he said it sux
- He's an imbecile
- No he's not. He's a genius and he's read more books on the crapper than you've read your whole life
- He's a snob and I've read a bunch of books. What've you read?
- I've read Kierkegaard. I bet you read Dr Seuss.
- Yeah, well, you're weird and I hear you have carnal knowledge of farm animals
- Do not! And I heard you didn't graduate 3rd grade until age 16
- Pig F***er
- Retard

Moderator - I'm not going to warn you people again!

- Okay, suppose your book is like food
- Then it'd be caviar
- No it wouldn't. It'd be pork rinds
- You would know, Pig F***er
- I'm no Pig F***er. I'm a really smart guy. I usually only ever read cuneiform directly from cave walls
- Elitist snob
- Special Ed

Moderator - * sigh *

- Okay, back to my analogy: if your book was food, it'd be on the menu at McDonalds
- I like McDonalds
- Figures
- Oh, and I suppose you only ever eat filet mignon and escargot
- I only eat organically grown vegetables
- What! You don't eat no meat!?
- Occasionally, but only free-range, hormone-free, chicken, who had an emotionally-fulfilling relationship with a left-leaning farmer
- Uhhh...

Moderator - People, Keep it on topic, please.

El Sancho - You know, that McDonalds is a pretty good stock, pays a nice dividend, good PE ratio, big time growth potential in China.

- What the hell?
- Yeah, What the hell!?
- Well, at least we agree on that, but your book still sux
- No it doesn't. You suck
- Nuh-uh, but now, since I'm so much smarter than you, I'm going to make a really really long and tedious, somewhat pretentious post that nobody's going to read because it's so long and tedious with lots of obscure references and questionable logic, but that won't matter because I'm going to use a bunch of big words that nobody understands and nobody will bother to look up and that won't matter either because it'll make me sound smart and anyway when you get right down to it that's what's important to me - sounding smart. Have I mentioned that I took my first doctorate in Interpretive Literature at age 12 from the Sorbonne in Paris? And I'm presently studying the effects of Elevator Maintenance on the Consciousness of Racial Minorities in Minsk, Russia? Yes, well, it's a fascinating area of research, with far reaching ramifications to the broader global society, blah blah blah. Blah, blah blah blah.
- I'm sorry, can you repeat that? I sort of glazed over right after, "Nuh-uh."
- I'd be happy to, my dim witted little friend, as I was saying...

And so it goes, on the Lit-Net.

[Emil Miller]

Okay then, to recap the thread thus far:

OP - Hey everybody, whaddaya think of this new book?
- Sux
- No it doesn't
- Yes it does
- It doesn't suck, you suck
- No I don't, and you're a moron
- Oh yeah, well, you can't even tie your own shoes
- Can too, and I heard your mother swims after troop ships
- She does not, and your mother's a syphilated whore

Moderator - People, People! No personal attacks, or I'll shut down this discussion.

- I suppose the book has some value
- Thank you, I knew you'd come around to reason
- For instance, it'd be valuable in an outhouse when you're out of TP
- Moron!
- Idiot!

Moderator - People!

- I read a review by a very important reviewer of books and he said it sux
- He's an imbecile
- No he's not. He's a genius and he's read more books on the crapper than you've read your whole life
- He's a snob and I've read a bunch of books. What've you read?
- I've read Kierkegaard. I bet you read Dr Seuss.
- Yeah, well, you're weird and I hear you have carnal knowledge of farm animals
- Do not! And I heard you didn't graduate 3rd grade until age 16
- Pig F***er
- Retard

Moderator - I'm not going to warn you people again!

- Okay, suppose your book is like food
- Then it'd be caviar
- No it wouldn't. It'd be pork rinds
- You would know, Pig F***er
- I'm no Pig F***er. I'm a really smart guy. I usually only ever read cuneiform directly from cave walls
- Elitist snob
- Special Ed

Moderator - * sigh *

- Okay, back to my analogy: if your book was food, it'd be on the menu at McDonalds
- I like McDonalds
- Figures
- Oh, and I suppose you only ever eat filet mignon and escargot
- I only eat organically grown vegetables
- What! You don't eat no meat!?
- Occasionally, but only free-range, hormone-free, chicken, who had an emotionally-fulfilling relationship with a left-leaning farmer
- Uhhh...

Moderator - People, Keep it on topic, please.

El Sancho - You know, that McDonalds is a pretty good stock, pays a nice dividend, good PE ratio, big time growth potential in China.

- What the hell?
- Yeah, What the hell!?
- Well, at least we agree on that, but your book still sux
- No it doesn't. You suck
- Nuh-uh, but now, since I'm so much smarter than you, I'm going to make a really really long and tedious, somewhat pretentious post that nobody's going to read because it's so long and tedious with lots of obscure references and questionable logic, but that won't matter because I'm going to use a bunch of big words that nobody understands and nobody will bother to look up and that won't matter either because it'll make me sound smart and anyway when you get right down to it that's what's important to me - sounding smart. Have I mentioned that I took my first doctorate in Interpretive Literature at age 12 from the Sorbonne in Paris? And I'm presently studying the effects of Elevator Maintenance on the Consciousness of Racial Minorities in Minsk, Russia? Yes, well, it's a fascinating area of research, with far reaching ramifications to the broader global society, blah blah blah. Blah, blah blah blah.
- I'm sorry, can you repeat that? I sort of glazed over right after, "Nuh-uh."
- I'd be happy to, my dim witted little friend, as I was saying...

And so it goes, on the Lit-Net.

I was wondering when someone was going to post something like this but you did leave it awful late. I mean, 21 pages on Harry Potter.

[qimissung]

:lol::lol::lol:

Sancho, really, this is a serious discussion! 10 demerits for not taking it seriously!

Actually, the discussion has been remarkably civil-kudos to all the participants for that.

[Drkshadow03]

You miss my point. If we are reading race into this, we must note that muggles are inferior to Wizards. Take your pick. We are muggles reading wizards, right, but we are still muggles - and muggles don't get portrayed well - The Dursleys, Voldemort's Dad, etc. - And they cannot go to hogwarts, they need to be brainwashed every time they get out of hand. How do you address this with your racial reading - they are just not special, or not worthy? They are not born with the talent? Or are you dismissing this as an overstatement, or is this just a kids book and not that intelligent.

What is a muggle, if not something non-wizardly. Some may be able to unmuggle themselves, and some wizards may be able to marry muggles, but they are still muggles. Is the lesson we need to learn to tolerate muggles, and live with the fact that some can get lucky and be "born with the ability" to become wizards?

I'm disinclined to continue this conversation for the most part. I have other things to do with my time and we've been having this SAME EXACT conversation for years. The essay I posted in this thread was an adaptation from an earlier essay I posted in a different HP thread from 2009 (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=760860&postcount=200). I edited it and cut out parts. Below are the parts I cut out, which directly pertain to your comments above and were written in response to similar comments you made back in 2009 (bolded for the parts that describe my position most directly):


It is precisely through the divorcing quality of fantasy, by creating an ideology that exists only in a different world, yet bearing similarities to our own ideologies, that allows us to see the extent of racism’s arbitrary nature. However, the opposite is not true in regards to the Muggle and Wizard divisions as possibly encouraging racist ideology.

It is important to remember that the Muggle and Wizarding worlds exist separately from each other much like two counties adjacent to one another, which is an inherent part of the Wainscott genre (the larger world needs to be ignorant of the magical sub-culture world living among or beside them). The Muggles live their everyday lives completely ignorant of the Wizarding World for the most part. The story never claims that Muggles are inferior to Wizards, at least not from the perspective of the heroes, only from the viewpoint of characters we are meant to despise. The Wizarding World and Muggles are merely different, not inferior or superior; this I think is the position of the story, and likewise, is present more for the sake of telling a fantasy story in the Wainscot tradition than serving as any effectual commentary on our society. After all, in real life there are no Wizards. These distinctions are merely conveniences of the genre, for the story’s sake, and most readers will recognize that instead of reading a particular theme of racial inferiority into it. After all, the readers of the books are all Muggles. It is ridiculous to think that readers will identify Muggles as inferior and bad when they themselves are Muggles. For this reason the real distinction between Muggles and Wizards doesn’t uncut the earlier anti-racial themes because readers will not identify this as any sort of real message that is applicable to their real lives, but merely as a genre trope, a convenience serving the nature of the story. The divorce between fantasy and reality is much greater in this instance. The racist belief that some races are superior to others in intelligence, physical prowess, and ability is too large of a metaphorical leap from the fantasy logic that some people can perform magic and others cannot for most people to read anything into this idea.

Even with all that said, Rowling paints the interrelations between these two dichotomous societies more complexly than just one having power over the other. Although most of the book shows the Wizarding World threatening to conquer the Muggle world, there are instances in the book when Muggles kill, torture, and harm wizards. The most obvious case being Dumbledore’s sister who is tortured by Muggles when they see her performing magic, but even Tom Riddle, the boy who would grow up to be Voldemort, lived also experienced a life being tortured by Muggles for being different in the orphanage. Harry Potter himself is verbally and psychologically abused by his adopted Muggle aunt and uncle. The Muggle world is just as much a threat to the Wizarding World as certain elements in the Wizarding World are a threat to the Muggle world. This explains why the Wizarding World needs to stay a secret. When Ministry officials tweak Muggle memories it is not out of some elitist joy of manipulating Muggles as rulers, but a general measure of preemptive self-defense.

Heck, even Emil, is making the same points he made back in 2009 (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=762157&postcount=262).

[mona amon]

LOL, Sancho! :smilielol5:


... I mean, 21 pages on Harry Potter.

Well, I must say I didn't think my humble topic would get such a huge response. :coolgleamA:

[JBI]

So your answer is, it's a genre trope, and should not be taken seriously. Therefore I say the whole good vs bad in the books is a genre trope, and should not be taken seriously - these tropes have played out in fantasy for 200 years now.

[Emil Miller]

So your answer is, it's a genre trope, and should not be taken seriously. Therefore I say the whole good vs bad in the books is a genre trope, and should not be taken seriously - these tropes have played out in fantasy for 200 years now.

I don't think I could take another 200 years of Harry Potter.

[Drkshadow03]

So your answer is, it's a genre trope, and should not be taken seriously. Therefore I say the whole good vs bad in the books is a genre trope, and should not be taken seriously - these tropes have played out in fantasy for 200 years now.

Yep, that's the basic gist. You can think whatever you'd like; I already explained some of the ways Potter takes common fantasy tropes, such as good vs. bad and twists them around.


I don't think I could take another 200 years of Harry Potter.

Well, perhaps we will still be reading Potter 200 years from now, the first book is still being read after 16 years.

[Emil Miller]

Yep, that's the basic gist. You can think whatever you'd like; I already explained some of the ways Potter takes common fantasy tropes, such as good vs. bad and twists them around.



Well, perhaps we will still be reading Potter 200 years from now, the first book is still being read after 16 years.

Only 16 years? Judging by this thread it already feels like 200.

[TurquoiseSunset]

I don't think I could take another 200 years of Harry Potter.

Nicolas Flamel, is that you?

[YesNo]

Well, perhaps we will still be reading Potter 200 years from now, the first book is still being read after 16 years.

This was a very enjoyable and successful thread, mona amon.

Hopefully, we are not at a market top for McDonald's, Sancho, but it looks like MCD is a good stock to own.

I guess I will have to be reincarnated to be reading HP 200 years from now. However, that was an excellent commentary on the series, Drkshadow03. You have shown that literary criticism can offer value to the reader.

[qimissung]

Also, and probably this has been said before, that what was so interesting about the books is that Rowling created this whole magical world, much like Tolkien did in Lord of the Rings. I compare Rowling to Spielberg. It doesn't seem like there's much new there, but the author is capable of creating a work that holds whole populations of readers spellbound, and that they even return to time and time again. It's not what the story is, it's how it's told. And therein lies her magic.

And since we're all (more or less) friends here, we know how you feel, you know how we feel-and you respect that. Ahhh! Thank you!

[JBI]

Also, and probably this has been said before, that what was so interesting about the books is that Rowling created this whole magical world, much like Tolkien did in Lord of the Rings. I compare Rowling to Spielberg. It doesn't seem like there's much new there, but the author is capable of creating a work that holds whole populations of readers spellbound, and that they even return to time and time again. It's not what the story is, it's how it's told. And therein lies her magic.

And since we're all (more or less) friends here, we know how you feel, you know how we feel-and you respect that. Ahhh! Thank you!

To be honest, for the past 2 months I have been using Rowling as a textbook for teaching children, and Bloom's criticism now seems far truer than before. The use of adverbs and cliches is almost every other sentence. It is dreadful writing. The second book shows improvement, as does the third, which I am going to assume is the hiring of a proper editor.

The book is riddled with bad prose, or at least the first one. It is not terribly crappy in terms of story, but not exactly original. To me the books are not bad, just dull. The second in terms of plotting is inferior to the first, but in terms of writing is superior. The third is perhaps the strongest in the series in terms of pacing, development, and plot, though the ending could have used a reshuffle. The repetitive use of red-herrings had already tired on me.

I feel, using it as a teaching material, that the book is an example of poor writing (the first). The use of too many adverbs is rather silly at times, and grouping adjectives in clusters is just weak sentence structure. She does a lot more telling than showing too, which is a bit weak on her part. As a teacher I need to keep advising my students, do not use adverbs like she does, do not use adverbs to modify adjectives like she does, these cliches are dry do not use them. I use the book because the kids in China (who pay me quite well mind you) like them because they are trendy, and their parents are glad to have them reading English, but they are not a good example of good prose, or a creative use of language. Le Guin was spot on in one of her essays on fantasy writing where she noted fantasy must pay particular use to language. Much of fantasy literature would be better, and better received if such was the case. Writing by thesaurus just reads like redundant prose.

I can see now why Mortalterror likes Hemingway so much, he at least knew how to reduce prose to the bare essentials, the raw and necessary. Rowling lacks this form of censorship. Everything is obvious, everything is overly exposed, everything is modified by 2 adjectives and an adverb. It is sickening. A paragraph is usually 2 sentences too long, and each sentence 2 words too long. Repetition is dull.

[Lokasenna]

Oh heck, here we go again...

[Pierre Menard]

Well at least now no one can say that people haven't been in-depth with their criticism of the series.

[mona amon]

Yay! Rowling's written another book! It's been out since April and no one knew it was her. :D I've bought it for my kindle but haven't started reading yet. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jul/14/jk-rowling-crime-novel-cuckoos-calling

[papillondemai]

My four year old niece is very excited about it.

[mona amon]

Finished a couple of days back. It was a very enjoyable read. The Cuckoo's calling by Robert Galbraith (J K Rowling) is a detective novel with good plot, excellent story telling and well drawn realistic characters. It's nothing as wonderful as the quirky and endearing Harry Potter novels, but she has succeeded here where she failed in The Casual Vacancy, which, though it wasn't bad, just failed to hit the mark. Now she's back in a genre that plays to all her strengths, I think she's got another winning series on her hands. Go Jo Rowling!

[Scheherazade]

Yay! Rowling's written another book! It's been out since April and no one knew it was her. :D I've bought it for my kindle but haven't started reading yet. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jul/14/jk-rowling-crime-novel-cuckoos-callingOne cannot help wondering how much of the harsh criticism The Casual Vacancy had received was due to the fact that it was written by JK Rowling.

I will be reading either or both books sometime soon just satisfy my curiosity.

[qimissung]

I heard The Casual Vacancy was pretty good, but that it could have been better if it had been better edited, if the editor had reigned her in a bit. The qualities that served her well in the Harry Potter books just didn't in this more adult outing.

I'll have to check out this latest, but I've got a lot to read already, so it will be awhile. It's good to hear that you enjoyed it, Mona. That presages good things for me, as far as the book is concerned.

[JBI]

One cannot help wondering how much of the harsh criticism The Casual Vacancy had received was due to the fact that it was written by JK Rowling.

I will be reading either or both books sometime soon just satisfy my curiosity.

Well, that is one way to look at it. Another way is to suggest the book probably would not have been printed, and certainly not in such a large volume had it not been written by an already well known author. There are quite a great number of books left unpublished of equal or greater quality that just couldn't get the presses to print them. The fact that she had such a great chance to publish again after Potter is already a somewhat large privilege in the cutthroat world of publishing.

As for this new read - without the fame machine behind it, a modest sale of 1500 copies is not surprising (her agent also knew who she was, as to probably how she secured the printing in the first place, given how hard it is to break into a market). Though we can expect now the mass printing that will bring this new one to best seller.

Fame is a double-edged sword. If she didn't like criticism she should have published a different novel or not published at all. As it is, she is sitting on a pile of gold, and still makes good money from book sales - her kids are going to be quite well-off, as probably will her grandchildren, etc. so there is no lack of personal achievement there. She can I guess just put writing as a sort of hobby and write the books that she wants, regardless of a public opinion against her. After all, the Ivory Tower did not like Potter as much as other favorites in the first place. Literary fiction is far more dangerous a field, as lack of proper style in prose cannot be dismissed with "well the book was just written for kids, so of course it is simple." As far as I am concerned, she uses far too many adverbs (almost on every sentence) which is a mark of amateurish writing (in the sense that she cannot convey attitudes or the implied meaning of the adverb through the basic narration or tone of dialog). We call such writing redundant in literary fiction, but we let it slip with Potter because the books are cute. When it comes to books for adults though we are far more picky. Such an angle of judgment is of course biased against children's literature, and not one I would hold to myself (as I am dismissive of almost all of Rowling's work in general) however seems to be the dominant train of thought amongst critics of her work.

[Scheherazade]

JBI, as much fun as it is to read your rant about JK Rowling - seriously, it still hasn't gotten old after all these years - I am not sure what your point is.

Any writer who has published with some success runs the same risks and I haven't read anywhere that she has complained or taken it in bad grace.

Do I think she is a good writer? I would say she is a good storyteller for children. Can she make the switch into adult literature? That is yet to be seen, which is why I would like to give her other books a chance. Will I buy her books? No. I am pretty sure she does not need my fiver to support her. So, library it is for me where her books are concerned... But then again, whenever is it not?

Which reminds me, are you still collecting rare edition books, JBI?

[mona amon]

Scher abd Qimi, I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good old-fashioned sort of detective story like Agatha Christie, the Father Brown stories, P D James etc.


Do I think she is a good writer? I would say she is a good storyteller for children.

I was going to call her a competent writer, but I guess the writers of Mills and Boon romances and such are also competent in their way, and she far outclasses them, so that doesn't work. I think she's like P G Wodehouse or Agatha Christie - not 'literary' but with a special appeal even for those who generally read far more complex and challenging books and that has enabled them to survive to this day, even though they were both somewhat dated right from the start. So is Rowling, with her medieval pre-computer world in Harry Potter, and her private detective in this book.


Well, that is one way to look at it. Another way is to suggest the book probably would not have been printed, and certainly not in such a large volume had it not been written by an already well known author. There are quite a great number of books left unpublished of equal or greater quality that just couldn't get the presses to print them. The fact that she had such a great chance to publish again after Potter is already a somewhat large privilege in the cutthroat world of publishing.

As for this new read - without the fame machine behind it, a modest sale of 1500 copies is not surprising (her agent also knew who she was, as to probably how she secured the printing in the first place, given how hard it is to break into a market). Though we can expect now the mass printing that will bring this new one to best seller.

You've got to give her points for trying. She did try to remain anonymous this time. and it is not her fault that she was outed and sales increased by 150,000% in a day (LOL what a figure!). I think good reviews and 1500 copies in about 3 months is not so bad for a completely unknown author, even if she had the advantage of getting the book published without any problem.

[JBI]

JBI, as much fun as it is to read your rant about JK Rowling - seriously, it still hasn't gotten old after all these years - I am not sure what your point is.

Any writer who has published with some success runs the same risks and I haven't read anywhere that she has complained or taken it in bad grace.

Do I think she is a good writer? I would say she is a good storyteller for children. Can she make the switch into adult literature? That is yet to be seen, which is why I would like to give her other books a chance. Will I buy her books? No. I am pretty sure she does not need my fiver to support her. So, library it is for me where her books are concerned... But then again, whenever is it not?

Which reminds me, are you still collecting rare edition books, JBI?

I don't collect rare editions really but generally hard to come by out of print books. As for these 1500, they will sky rocket in price momentarily, and stay there for a little while, given there are only 1500.

As for my point, it is that all criticism is somewhat justified and not harsh in the sense that she still has her voice communicating through her books, and if people don't like them they will simply stop buying them, thereby showing the truth of the criticism. A critic against Rowling is a rather useless pursuit, given that her reputation amongst those who like her work is unwavering, and there are always going to be supporters.

As for the switch to adult literature, I just want to point a sort of double standard here if I may be nitpicky (in as unantagonistic way as possible I hope), Why such a distinction? In the sense, are we to say her style is essentially developed for children, or are we to say she lacks the ability to write mature works? this is an interesting question into the nature of Children's literature, and genre writing in general - can someone, in a sense, outgrow Rowling, or is writing the same regardless of the age of the reader?

In that sense, I personally feel we are more liberal in judgment of children's literature, in the sense where we think "well as long as the kids are reading it is OK." As for me, I would never pick up a general mystery novel in the first place (I do not care for anything plot-driven really, and narrative is generally of secondary importance to me), and in that sense what is to separate Rowling from the other greats of the Genre (who I cannot name besides maybe Cristie and Doyle as classic examples).

Should we then put her against the criteria of the genre, and judge her amongst the ranks of its greats, in that mode? And perhaps subject her to the presses' standards, without the fast-lane for already established-out-of-genre authors? In that sense I am interested to see how Rowling can make such a transition, as an author and as a product. It won't be easy to be accepted in that vein, especially since those who like Potter will not necessarily care for Mystery novels, or identify with such characters in the way they identified with their magical vicarious selves.

I am not trying to blast Rowling here mind you, as I have come to terms with almost all genre workers of any sort that go famous (as not even needing my dismissal, as I simply will let time do the judging, and let those who enjoy the work be as long as they don't tell me how wrong I am for not reading such works). It's just interesting to see how marketing goes with these works. It is also interesting to note her Sex Change (again, J.K. Rowling being chosen to appear more Masculine in the first place). Why go male? Coincidence or calculated ploy, to create a back-story for a male genre? This is something I find interesting, especially since she claimed the new work based on personal experiences, which in a sense is complete nonsense.

[Drkshadow03]

After all, the Ivory Tower did not like Potter as much as other favorites in the first place. Literary fiction is far more dangerous a field, as lack of proper style in prose cannot be dismissed with "well the book was just written for kids, so of course it is simple." As far as I am concerned, she uses far too many adverbs (almost on every sentence) which is a mark of amateurish writing (in the sense that she cannot convey attitudes or the implied meaning of the adverb through the basic narration or tone of dialog). We call such writing redundant in literary fiction, but we let it slip with Potter because the books are cute. When it comes to books for adults though we are far more picky. Such an angle of judgment is of course biased against children's literature, and not one I would hold to myself (as I am dismissive of almost all of Rowling's work in general) however seems to be the dominant train of thought amongst critics of her work.

Of course, Kenneth Grahame's The Wind in the Willows, which is often put forward as an example of great children's literature, use of adverbs makes J. K. Rowling's use look restrained.

[JBI]

True maybe, I have not read that book in 15-odd years so I cannot say anything about it now, but that wasn't my point. My point was had the Wind in the Willows been an adult book, more people would have commented on the adverbs.

That is not a judgment on my part, as unlike most I do not like the idea of a children's literature of such sorts, however I will suggest that there is always a double standard when it comes to kids.

Such an argument should also be examined in adaptation - how does kid's cinema really work - is the appeal toward children shared with adults, or are they two different levels of understanding (such as Shrek's sexual and inappropriate innuendo).

The same could be said for levels of literary fiction - for instance Umberto Eco is known to write with both public and academic audiences both held in his mind (Baudilino for instance, is quite loaded with very specific obscure references only a medievalist would catch). Is children's literature required to play to both fields?

Take an example of Christina Rossetti's Goblin Market, at once a children's poem, yet also one interpreted as a sort of sexual allegory, or feminist manifesto. How are we to interpret this work - can we value it while holding it up as something specifically written for children, or must we find/identify other meanings to make the text more palatable.

If we say Potter is Children's literature, as most certainly the first three books are, then when we evaluate their worth, are we judging them as to their appeal toward children, or their appeal toward adults - in that sense how do we judge language? is language age-dependent, and should we make excuses for "less than literary" language in the genre?

Ursula K. Leguin wrote an interesting essay on language in fantasy literature as required to fit the setting and mode of the writing. She writes mostly that epic fantasy requires a properly done epic language. Such an argument is of course valid - the absorption into a new world requires a specific idiom, and certainly Leguin, like other greats in the field have managed to achieve this.

Yet when we deal with Children's literature we are faced with a rather strange genre confine - what is the appropriate language of children's literature, and by extension, is someone proficient in such language able to be taken seriously outside of it, and are such skills transferable. I am not so surprised she is writing mysteries, given the nature of her formulaic writing in much of Potter (the red herring being her favorite literary device), and her love of narrative exploration through revealing clues (Harry and friends must unlock the new mystery every year, mind you), yet what of language - this is the interesting part.

As it is, I will not read the books, as I do not have the time or energy, but I will suggest one thing - those who love Potter may not necessarily like this new work, and those who like this new work won't necessarily be crazy about Potter. If the reviews are not hyperbolic and she has written something of worth, even amongst lovers of the genre only, then the work should be judged without the notion of Potter in the background. The same way we can judge a steak cooked by a chef well known for their desserts.

[Scheherazade]

As it is, I will not read the books, as I do not have the time or energy, but I will suggest one thing - those who love Potter may not necessarily like this new work, and those who like this new work won't necessarily be crazy about Potter. If the reviews are not hyperbolic and she has written something of worth, even amongst lovers of the genre only, then the work should be judged without the notion of Potter in the background. The same way we can judge a steak cooked by a chef well known for their desserts.Isn't this true for all writers even when they remain within the realms of the same genre? One might enjoy one author's some works very much while feeling disappointed with the other works of the same author. I am not sure that you take it upon yourself to make particular points about JK Rowling.

As for Children's Literature as a genre... There is certainly a different genre, one desirable characteristic of which, in my opinion, is the capacity to engage particularly the younger readers and to make them willing readers in the long term. This is not having double standards or lower expectations of the writers who concentrate on this reader group but offering what is suitable/appropriate/desirable (I do realise these are judgemental adjectives and I will get picked on for using them).

Any book written within this genre should be measured and evaluated within its boundaries. Using your food analogy, I will suggest that any food prepared for toddlers lacks salt for health reasons and we cannot say they fail to make an impression on the grown up palate because they do not have salt (as they are not expected to).

And within this genre there are many junk (as in any others)... Did you read The Messenger by Lowry? Now there is some sugar-coated, condescending piece of... literature for you.

[JCamilo]

All genres seems more about marketing than style, but leaving this aside, some so called children literature writers are going to survive the criticism. We had Nathaniel Hawthorne, Lewis Carroll and Robert Louis Stevenson. Their works were created to children, specific children, to whom those writers used to tell stories, not to a market that demands genre specific language to target their public, which is what Rowling probally aimed when she started. Neither seem to dumb down the reader, even if sometimes they do avoid some themes or imagenery.

I think Walt Disney is a good example, He got the appeal of faery tales, which is neither for children or addults, just universal enough to appeal to the parent and the children at same time, one appealing to the memories, other to starting building references and symbologies. The same i recall the Richard Donner Superman, we see it today, we see how it was a children movie. Superman is always smiling with the corner of his lips, it is clearly learning how to deal with the world and Gene Hackman is obviously just having fun as Lex Luthor, yet, I recall, parents along with us kids (i was one that time) because the obvious appeal of Superman, that works much as modern faery tales. Carroll and Stevenson seems to have reached the same kind of success, addults would not leave them or anything else. Addults enjoy Alice as much as anything written by other victorian writers. And of course, everyone love pirates.

[JBI]

My understanding was Treausure Island appeals to the childish nature in everyone, rather than children per-say. Still, the Victorian genre was quite different from the contemporary.

What of the notion of the "tale" itself as a sort of in marketable genre now. There were thousands of stories written throughout history but it is hard to name a worker of that genre today, in the sense that we have moved toward first novels then series of novels.