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

[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.

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

[Emil Miller]

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

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 (). 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 (). 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.

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.