Harry Potter and the Half-Baked Plot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I do not like flying blind in defense of any author, but if the movie adaptations were somewhat faithful to the texts, I do not believe either you or luke are being fair to Rowling on the merits. The story about the werewolf instructor wasn't just fantasy for the sake of fantasy JBI. She is teaching lessons about the price of stigma when it is imposed on the minority by the majority, and she seems to have a rather deft hand in doing it. The simple fact that her work created a mass media franchise doesn't mean her talent should be automatically crucified. I have read too many educated people who take her work seriously not to respect what they have to say, even if I have no desire to buy the series myself, or sample them at the library, at least not now.

---

She is preaching Christian morality. And either way, in the Harry Potter world, status is by birth, not by effort put it. It's all "natural talent" and not hard-working, or a good person. There is no really grounds for morality in the text, other than an almost clichéd version of Christian values.

Either way though, I don't think the books are very moral-driven or didactic in themselves.

You would by any chance be reading F. R. Leavis are you?

Either way, there are no Jewish wizards, and the one Irish one is the person who betrays Harry, which I find ironic, not to mention the (Chinese?) girl being the subject of infatuation by all the white characters, which I find comical as well. But to the point, they are all Christian and for 99% of them, they are all white Anglo-Saxon protestants. I guess Jews aren't magical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

But such commonplace morality does not make a book good or great. I could create a little tale, the worse I could do on purpose, with a moral conclusion to it, that does not change the fact that it would be utter crap.

---

What does she do so poorly then? The stories seem to have a warmth and humanity to them which comes through the humor and the caricature, which mediates nicely with the dramatic conflict. I think she relates well to what interests children, and I think she does have a talent for it, and that the franchise reflects the appeal of her work as much as it hypes it. Kids aren't fools Etienne, try talking to one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

What does she do so poorly then? The stories seem to have a warmth and humanity to them which comes through the humor and the caricature, which mediates nicely with the dramatic conflict. I think she relates well to what interests children, and I think she does have a talent for it, and that the franchise reflects the appeal of her work as much as it hypes it. Kids aren't fools Etienne, try talking to one.

---

She's not a children's author past book 3. She has even said so herself, denoting that her "readers grow with her books." She's a teen writer, so I think such justification can only go so far.

I think my biggest problem with her text in itself is the stupidity of the writing. It lacks style, and it lacks craftsmanship. I don't have a text in front of me, so I can't give you a quote, but just go on wikiquote, punch Rowling in, and read some samples yourself.

I do not disagree with your last post, but that doesn't make it good literature in any way. And not because it's aimed for children, since there are plenty of children books who are great literature.

By the way I teach to young children.

Cough. Joyce. Cough. Cough.

It does my heart no small measure of good to see you and JBI railing away at Rowling and Tolkien in this manner and if indeed there is no next life, there is justice enough in this one. Oh, the world is fair girls and boys, and it's a beautiful thing.

You of course know I threw in Joyce and Proust just for you. I was tempted to add Hemingway as well... but too obvious.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

She is preaching Christian morality. And either way, in the Harry Potter world, status is by birth, not by effort put it. It's all "natural talent" and not hard-working, or a good person. There is no really grounds for morality in the text, other than an almost clichéd version of Christian values.

. . .

Either way, there are no Jewish wizards, and the one Irish one is the person who betrays Harry, which I find ironic, not to mention the (Chinese?) girl being the subject of infatuation by all the white characters, which I find comical as well. But to the point, they are all Christian and for 99% of them, they are all white Anglo-Saxon protestants. I guess Jews aren't magical.

---

Dude, what books are you reading?! If I remember correctly the Potter books had a TON of People of Color in them. Also, there are multiple Irish wizards. And which Irish wizard betrays Harry?

The book is anti-natural talent in many ways, though I will grant there are a couple of things where natural talent plays a part like Harry's Quiditch skills. The main villain gets his butt-handed to him, despite his natural talent. Hermione is more talented than her two friends in magic overall because she studies her butt off. Natural talent is NOT what Potter praises.

Magicality is by natural talent. Hence that squib or whatever you call it notion, or the muggle notion - magical ability is by birth, not by merit.

Fine, in the fourth one we see some foreign wizards, but we must admit Hogwarts is very English, you get your odd black kid, and the one Irish kid (Seamus I think his name is), two Indian twins, and one Chinese girl. Either way though, where are all the Jewish Wizards! Where are they? Where are all the Buddhist Wizards? But of course, Christ echoes in every moral lesson in the book, and it is overall a christian text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Dude, what books are you reading?! If I remember correctly the Potter books had a TON of People of Color in them. Also, there are multiple Irish wizards. And which Irish wizard betrays Harry?

The book is anti-natural talent in many ways, though I will grant there are a couple of things where natural talent plays a part like Harry's Quiditch skills. The main villain gets his butt-handed to him, despite his natural talent. Hermione is more talented than her two friends in magic overall because she studies her butt off. Natural talent is NOT what Potter praises.

---

JBI's points are well taken. I can't assume to be an expert on the matter, I've only read the first four of the books, but from what I've read of the matter: Harry's status in school is completely based on birth and events that were entirely out of his control. Even his magical abilities are natural, and he often doesn't have to work hard for anything, and, in fact, doesn't really seem interested in the whole nature or art of magic to begin with - especially compared with Hermione.

This is the book's major contradiction- its constant appraisal of "hard-work ethic" where elitism is frowned upon and yet its main character is one who's fame and ability is completely inherited.

Why do we always have these discussions on books with little or no literary merit.. lol.. I mean seriously, Harry Potter.. people don't actually consider this to be good literature.. Maybe entertaining as a light read... but good literature. I think not..

and the comparison previously to how Shakespeare's works took some time to be accepted by the elite and by academia.. are you seriously suggesting Rowling is going to be canonized by academia as a literary genius at some point in the future.. That is an extremely depressing thought..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I do not like flying blind in defense of any author, but if the movie adaptations were somewhat faithful to the texts, I do not believe either you or luke are being fair to Rowling on the merits. The story about the werewolf instructor wasn't just fantasy for the sake of fantasy JBI. She is teaching lessons about the price of stigma when it is imposed on the minority by the majority, and she seems to have a rather deft hand in doing it. The simple fact that her work created a mass media franchise doesn't mean her talent should be automatically crucified. I have read too many educated people who take her work seriously not to respect what they have to say, even if I have no desire to buy the series myself, or sample them at the library, at least not now.

---

you are right about the werewolf (Professor Lupin), but then she only takes this issues up sporadically and then drops them again. the "mudblood" issue ("pure blooded" wizards discriminating against those born to none-magical parents) does run through the whole series, but is treated in a superficial way, in my humble opinion.
I don't know about other countries (and my impression is that the UK does not have a tradition of "didactic" children's/ young adults' literature, "children's books" seems to be a synonym for fairy tales/ fantasy/non-realistic writing over there, but maybe I'm mistaken), but over here we have lots of children's books that deal with racism, anti-Semitism, poverty, environmental destruction, war etc. in a much profounder way while at the same being interesting too read. Some of these can be a bit "didactic" (or at least the way they are discussed in schools is very preachy) but most are a gripping read.
I think there are better ways of making children think about these issues than wrapping them up in a fairy tale world, which makes it difficult esp. for younger children to transfer the message to the real world.

She also missed the chance in writing about gay relationships, or things of that nature. With the predominant white, christian theme going on, of course that's what's going to happen. Rowling clearly grew up in an area without coloreds and such, so she isn't going to put many of them into her story. Now you can't admit that she didn't try on the rites, as she said dumbledore was gay(after she wrote the books and never mentioned it in the actual book), and there was that one random black kid who played no importance whatsoever. I'll tell you why there are not many colored people. Because this book is about a white kid, with white friends, and since the main character is white, there's no way she can let Harry have a colored kid going on adventures with him. It would spark to many rascist jokes and then ignite into a whole list of problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glory

She also missed the chance in writing about gay relationships, or things of that nature. With the predominant white, christian theme going on, of course that's what's going to happen. Rowling clearly grew up in an area without coloreds and such, so she isn't going to put many of them into her story. Now you can't admit that she didn't try on the rites, as she said dumbledore was gay(after she wrote the books and never mentioned it in the actual book), and there was that one random black kid who played no importance whatsoever. I'll tell you why there are not many colored people. Because this book is about a white kid, with white friends, and since the main character is white, there's no way she can let Harry have a colored kid going on adventures with him. It would spark to many rascist jokes and then ignite into a whole list of problems.

---

Oh, come on. Twain did it over 100 years ago, and he sold well enough.

And Dumbledore being gay has no bearing on the series whatsoever. He clearly lives an unsexual existence, and it is suggested, if we assume that he is a homosexual, that he has never had a physical relationship with a man. It's basically like her saying, he was gay, but he was a good enough Christian not to act. It's hogwash to use her time, and it's irrelevant. She would have been better off not revealing that fact.

To Jozanny, if you want moral children's fiction, you may want to try Judy Bloom, funnily enough, she is the most protest writer in America.

Yes. Dumbledore's homosexuality seems to be a mere attempt at generating an association with a type of Greek intellectual/homosexual relationship between men, instead of being warranted by the story itself. It also appears like a simple attempt to generate controversy, which - again this relates to marketing - generates more book sales, than for artistic purposes.

But then again, JBI, who is left to defend this book series, and who even wanted to in the first place. I feel like a big bully kicking sand in the face of this little children's book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

Yes. Dumbledore's homosexuality seems to be a mere attempt at generating an association with a type of Greek intellectual/homosexual relationship between men, instead of being warranted by the story itself. It also appears like a simple attempt to generate controversy, which - again this relates to marketing - generates more book sales, than for artistic purposes.

But then again, JBI, who is left to defend this book series, and who even wanted to in the first place. I feel like a big bully kicking sand in the face of this little children's book.

---

Great analogy. Let's kick enough at it to bury it.

I'd be willing to defend Potter, but I lack the time at the moment to be able to do so properly.