What if? (my very last post about the Potterverse - I hope)

[mary_j_59]

As I expect all of my friends know, I was deeply disappointed in Deathly Hallows, and therefore in the Potterverse as a whole. It seemed to me meanspirited, full of contradictory messages, and poorly written. In many ways, after two years, it still does. But, as a result of a couple of conversations, something just occurred to me. What if the Potterverse is not exactly what it seems to be? Or, rather, what if Rowling actually achieved her goal with these books - but that goal wasn't exactly what we (or at least I ) thought it was?

There are two ways in which I think this could be so, one likely, and one perhaps unintentional. I'll start with the unintentional one.

I expect those of us on the lookout for Christian symbolism saw Harry as a Christ figure. I certainly did, and I was disgusted. But someone (was it Jodel?) pointed out that:
1. Snape's reaching out to Harry, rather than trying to save himself, was a choice - and a sacrifice. A deliberate one.
2. If anything was going to confer protection on the school and its inhabitants, the deliberate sacrifice of an acting headmaster doing his duty would be much more likely to confer that protection than the death of a boy who happened to be a walking horcrux.

I was not the person who had this insight, but it's pretty brilliant! From this, it follows that-
If there is a Christ figure in these books, it is Snape (imperfect as he is). And Harry's virtue, and his heroism, lies in his recognition of Snape and his sacrifice. Ron and most of the wizarding world don't achieve this recognition, but we are supposed to see that Harry does.

That is possible. As I said, I don't think it's intentional, but it is quite definitely there; it's a part of what I (and others) have been calling the shadow reading, and it hangs together much better than the surface reading of the books. But I think there is a reading that is intentional, and Rowling herself gave us plently of warning about what, exactly, that reading is.

She said that she didn't like fantasy. She said that she didn't think she was writing a fantasy. She said that she intended to subvert the fantasy genre.

When I read this, back in the Time magazine interview, my reaction was like Terry Pratchett's - "what do you think you're writing? You have unicorns in your story!" And I didn't take Rowling's statement seriously. Now I think I should have.

Because one of the effects of these books, at least on me, was: "Gosh, now I hate magic." I didn't want to pick up, or think about, any book with magic in it. I was thoroughly disgusted with Rowling's magical world and disliked almost everyone and everything in it - with the notable exceptions of Severus Snape, Neville Longbottom, and Luna Lovegood. I even began asking myself why I liked fantasy, anyway. Magic simply corrupted those who had it, didn't it? It took me a long time, and a lot of analysis, to come back to the fantasies I truly loved and to see the difference between those works and Rowling's. But I still have a knee-jerk reaction against fantasy and magic, as a result of these books.

I now think my reaction was exactly what Rowling was after. Jodel and Marionros remarked, in a conversation, that Rowling seemed to be out to subvert the school story. Not so - in many ways, at least according to C.S. Lewis's definition of the school story (see my essay on Eustace and Harry for more about that), Rowling simply follows the pattern slavishly. But fantasy? She does actually subvert it, and that is just what she aimed to do.

And that's brilliant, in a way. I still don't especially like what Rowling did, but she did in fact fulfill a stated goal with these books. Which means that they are a good deal more coherent and purposeful than I had initially thought.

Just a thought.

Comments

[hope-24.livejournal.com]

To be blunt, I just think that Rowling needed a very honest editor who would tell her when something was incoherent or illogical - and wouldn't hold back with the red pen. A great deal of the stuff I have problems with: the failure to follow through on the four element/balance thing of the four houses, Ginny the fembot, etc - would have been jumped on, ordinarily. I wonder whether the sheer success of the novels meant that critique became a no-no?

I think your idea is cleverer than what Rowling was probably going for. :)

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I can see where you are coming from, especially because things Rowling has said in interviews indicate she thinks she wrote things she just didn't write. The most egregious examples are Slughorn leading the Slytherins into battle against Voldemort (that's just not in the book), and the redemption of Severus Snape, which isn't in the book, ether. She doesn't really seem to know what she actually wrote. And, heaven knows, she dropped the ball on house unity, the horcruxes, the power of love, and many other things that mattered to many of her readers. So I don't think you're wrong.

Still, she did say she intended to subvert the fantasy genre, and she did get me to hate fantasy, however briefly. That's an achievement, of sorts. It's not one I particularly like, but it is an achievement.

[professor-mum.livejournal.com]

I pray that M1 of DH will explain the Horcrux --- both Regulus' knowledge of and why the hell he turned against the DE's. It simply cannot be because he objected to the way Voldy mistreated Kreacher in the Cave. Why?

Kreacher's mistreatment

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

But actually, in canon, every Slytherin Voldemort supporter we see turns against Voldie when s/he realizes Voldie is a direct threat to a loved one:
Snape/Lily
Narcissa/Draco
even, to an extent, Lucius/Draco- the last battle of H.
Draco/his parents(?) - trying to avoid identifying Harry to the Snatchers, trying to keep Crabbe from killing or hurting Harry in the Room of Requirement

So the only objection to Regulus/Kreacher being a part of the pattern is that you don't credit Regulus with caring that much about the house elf who may well have been his nanny and/or pre-Hogwarts primary playmate....

[hope-24.livejournal.com]

The interviews drive me crazy. It reminds me of when I have to hand a graded essay back to a student. It's fine to talk about all the extra stuff you know in our interview, and where you had planned to go with the essay - but if it's not *in* the essay, then I can't give you marks for it. She did it quite a bit post DH, didn't she? About Hermione's career, and things like that?

The house unity thing is a particular bugbear of mine, because it's like she simply forgot about it. I'd have thought that, in a children's book, the notions of integration, tolerance, unity, etc. would have been some important ideas to put across. Not to mention that it would have made the plot make more sense! Gah!

[professor-mum.livejournal.com]

First, I agree with the poster below: JKR needed an honest editor who wasn't afraid to rein in an 800lb gorilla who refused to practice good continuity hygine.

Second, with much distance from DH and deep reflection, it is abundantly clear to me that Jo simply did not like that Snape became a runaway fandom favorite, slightly out of her control. His ignoble death on the floor will always represent, to me, Jo flexing her authorial perogative to leave Harry no glory competition at the tale's end.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Oh, I think you're right (and see what I said to Hope, above). It's quite clear that Rowling went out of her way to minimize Snape and diminish his character as much as she could. The result was only minor damage to the character, but major damage (imho) to her plot and themes.

But I do think it's true that she hates fantasy. Who knows; maybe she really did intend to subvert the genre?

[professor-mum.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't have to tell you that she is a controlling person, and I think it privately galled her that the Snape character got away from her and took on a bright life of its own. I think the first scene in DH illustrates her anger: Snape simply watches a fellow Hogwarts teacher (one who we've never met, grrrr)get murdered and he does nothing to save her. It's like Jo is saying: do you STILL worship this guy and find him an inspirational role model?

[bohemianspirit.livejournal.com]

Snape simply watches a fellow Hogwarts teacher (one who we've never met, grrrr)get murdered and he does nothing to save her. It's like Jo is saying: do you STILL worship this guy and find him an inspirational role model?

YES, because there was not a damned thing he could have done to save her. Any rescue attempt would result only in both of them getting killed, as well as the betrayal of Severus' allegiance and who-knows-what outcome for the students of Hogwarts and for the war itself.

We've never met this colleague of his, yet the way she pleads with him suggests that she did trust and respect Severus and would expect him to want to help her. Which, once we know what Severus said to Dumbledore--"Lately, only those I could not save"--is exactly what he would have wanted to do.

Having to sit there watching her suffer and then be killed, and remain stoically Occluded through it all, represented a far deeper and more wrenching courage than the reckless Gryffindor variety.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I agree 100 percent, Bohemianspirit. Really, the only thing wrong with that scene is that we had never seen (and scarcely ever heard of) Charity Burbage before. What it tells us about Severus Snape and his sheer grit and loyalty is actually worthwhile. But the scene would have been far more wrenching had we known of a relationship between them-

[bohemianspirit.livejournal.com]

Yes, it would have been a good idea to have Charity Burbage appear previously, even if only in passing, once or twice per book. Why not mention her sitting at the Head Table with the other teachers? Or some mention by Hermione in third year, who was taking Muggle Studies?

But the scene would have been far more wrenching had we known of a relationship between them-

It seems like an awful lot of people have inferred some kind of a relationship between them, just from the little bit we see. And I started writing Severus/Charity as a pairing for Snape100 when the prompt was based on the "Eye of the Beholder" fic with characters that rarely get paired in fanfiction, so of course I've thought about it a bit myself. ;-) But even when I first read the scene in DH, I got the impression of at least simple, cordial, collegial friendship between the two, and great trust, a trust that was being betrayed.

And saying that Severus had sheer grit is probably the understatement of the century. He had weaknesses and vulnerabilities, but by God, at the core he was a strong man.

[professor-mum.livejournal.com]

I know what Jo tried to convey, and I do respect your interpretation. But it just didn't work for me in the same manner. Prior to DH Jo did a great job "previewing" characters and elements that would later come into play. Charity Burbage was a jarring one scene presence to me --- I had nothing invested in her and I didn't know what sort of person she was (sinner, saint, whatever). So, the emotion of her murder and Snape's stoic presence was muted for me. It would/should have played like you describe above if only we knew her.

[bohemianspirit.livejournal.com]

Even without what I read into the situation, it was still horrifying enough. I didn't have to know who she was or what kind of a person she was to feel her agony--or, after solidifying his true allegiance, Severus'. Does it really matter if she was a "sinner" or a "saint"? She was a fellow human being who published an article that rubbed Voldemort the wrong way. That was enough for me.

[darkthirty.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think this is in fact closer to my reading of Rowling - a left leaning, semi-anarchist pragmatist.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I'm assuming you mean the anti-fantasy reading?

But the thing to realize is that all the other readings (including the naive, right-leaning pro-Gryffindor and Dumbledore one) are also present. And none of them - not even the shadow reading, and certainly not the pro-Gryffindor surface reading, hang together completely. No, the anti-fantasy one doesn't really hang together, either.

I don't expect any work of art to have a simple message one could write out on a teabag. But I do expect it to have coherence and an effect on the recipient; I expect it to communicate something. Rowling's work remains muddled to me. Furthermore, if she intended the anti-fantasy message, I don't like it. But I have to admit, if she intended that message, I can at last let go of the books because I can see where the author was coming from. I don't have to agree with her in order to understand her.

But I am not at all sure that she did intend this meaning. I wish I could be sure. It would be a huge relief to me if I could be sure that readers are not supposed to like Harry.

BTW, the pro-Gryffindor, pro-Dumbledore and Harry reading is essentially fascist.

[elanor-x.livejournal.com]

It would be a huge relief to me if I could be sure that readers are not supposed to like Harry.
I am 100% sure we're supposed to like him. Both the books and the interviews fully support that.

Imo it's possible both to like Harry and to see Snape as the closest to a Christ figure. But I have trouble seeing Snape this way - in a "touching" moment when DD asked whether he cared about the boy, he said he did all of it for Lily. (Why did JKR write it this way? It wasn't romantic or moving and just made Snape seem a heartless fanatic). If he started caring about Harry too, a Christ figure reading would seem more plausible. As it is, I have difficulties viewing him like that. Christ loved all people, not a Chosen Woman.

With whom is Snape on your icon? Harry?

Well, yes-

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Several things here. I do agree that we are supposed to like Harry; the problem is that he becomes quite unlikeable (at least to me) in the last two books. It's a huge problem to me that the boy never expresses gratitude or remorse about anything.

As to Snape as a Christ figure, I think it is still quite possible to see him that way. The scene you mention is clearly a part of Rowling's attempt to diminish the character - but it doesn't work as she intended, at least to me. Reasons? In that same scene, we see Snape's obvious concern for Dumbledore - a man who is in the process of betraying him to his death. We get the "only those I could not save" comment, which shows Snaps's moral growth so clearly. And, as Bohemianspirit has said, we get a strong feeling of misdirection. No, Snape doesn't like Harry. I do think he loves him. Did you read my paper on this? There is a difference between liking and love, and it's not a difference Rowling seems to appreciate.

But it's true, as I said above, that no reading of these books is entirely coherent. That's because the books are not. Snape as a Christ figure - I've said all along that he is too imperfect to really fit that role, but I still maintain that his journey makes sense as the slow, growth or an unloved and neglected young man into sainthood. The saints are all, without exception, imperfect people. All, without exception, are called to imitate Christ to the best of their ability. And we are all called to sainthood. But that's my theology; it probably isn't Rowlling's. Nevertheless, I maintain this is what she shows us in Severus Snape. She could also have shown us this in Harry, if she had taken the trouble to show the boy actually being sorry for wrong he has done, loving an enemy, changing his behavior --- but she didn't. She seems to think Harry is fine as he is and doesn't have to grow up.

Yes, that is Harry with young Severus in my icon. It's a part of a painting Sigune did for me in the exchange last year to illustrate one of my stories. Needless to say, I was thrilled with what she did!

Re: Well, yes-

[elanor-x.livejournal.com]

No - to love someone is to recognize what they truly are and to desire whatever is truly good for them.

No, Snape doesn't like Harry. I do think he loves him. Did you read my paper on this?

I read it now. May be he does love him in the end, according to this definition.

Re: Well, yes-

[(Anonymous)]

There is a difference between liking and love, and it's not a difference Rowling seems to appreciate.

Sadly, it seems to be a difference not widely appreciated. There's also a difference between loving, or even liking, a person and approving of all of their actions and attitudes. Unfortunately, that seems to be even less appreciated. Was it Lewis who wrote about a terrible love?

Re: Well, yes-

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes - and also Charles Williams. I quote both of them in an early essay I wrote about Severus Snape. It's called "Severus Snape as a Pillar of the Universe", and you can find it by clicking on "Severus Snape" in the tags here on my livejournal. You might enjoy it, if you haven't read it already.

Thanks for the comment!

[sylvanawood.livejournal.com]

I don't think she meant that seriously. She said a lot of things slightly tongue in cheek which were taken out of context.

Fantasy, like any genre, has horrible crap and outstanding works. To hate a genre because one writer spoiled it is unfair and I'm sorry that this happened to you.
I doubt that it will affect many lovers of good fantasy though. Many have complained throughout the course of the series that her world building lacks logic and detail, that the rules of her world are whimsical and unclear. Which they are. She may have 'designed' everything in her notebooks, but from the many times she contradicts herself, she seems to have problems remembering just what she said where.

All this, to me, speaks more of a normal woman overwhelmed by all the attention that comes with big money (which went more than a little to her head) than someone deliberately out to subvert.

If anyhing, she's made fantasy more popular, because hardly anyone I know who read the books once, in passing, without the detailed anaylsis we do hereabouts, thinks twice about the things we discuss at length and has fun with the story instead. And if you read it through from beginning to end and aren't waiting for years for the next update, wondering if Snape will ever get treated decently - then it is a nice, fun story with some amazing depth here and there, something that made children like to read, something where good triumphs over bad - and that's it.

I'm not saying that I like it, mind you. It could have become really good. As Hope said: a good editor...

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Well - it didn't happen to me. Nothing at all that Rowling could do would get me to abandon Tolkien and LeGuin, for example! But I do think that, if Rowling had truly loved fantasy as a genre, she would have thought more about the world-building you mention and done it more carefully. I don't know that I would have liked her story any better if she had had clear rules of magic, though! I did spend some time questioning why I liked fantasy when I did not like magic, though, and I'm still reluctant to pick up any book that deals with witches, wizards and magical schools!

As for casual readers - I saw, in DH, a definite effort to diminish Snape, but most casual readers still saw him as a hero, if not the hero of the piece. Thus the child's question - did you always mean Snape to be a hero? - and Rowling's horrified gasp in reaction. So I suppose we should be grateful that she was not in perfect control of her material, after all! Snape got away from her, and Harry didn't.

(I should mention that I did thoroughly enjoy The Bartimaeus Trilogy. Stroud did a good, honest job on those books. On R. J. Anderson's recommendation, I also just finished The Demon's Lexicon . That, too, is a well-crafted book that tells a worthwhile (if creepy and disturbing) story. About Bartimaeus - a child told me that they were far better than Harry Potter. I did not believe him, but, on reading them, I discovered he was right. They are.)

[professor-mum.livejournal.com]

I am a huge Bartimeus fan, and can I also steer you to The last Apprentice series as well. You won't be disappointed.

[exhpfan.livejournal.com]

I still can't believe that I wasted 3yrs of my life discussing the Harry Potter books, and that I'm still responding to post about the series. I guess addiction or habit can apply to internet actions. I never was interested in looking for symbolism. I was just a theorist trying to figure out solutions to what I thought were brilliant mysteries.

All I can say about subverting the fantasy genre is that she subverted all genres. She wrote trash, not literature of any genre.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I can understand where you're coming from. I really can. In a lot of ways, even if you accept one or both of my interpretations above (or, even if you like the surface reading which Rowling apparently intended), the last book is just badly written. I do feel that I've been played for a fool by supporting Rowling as long and as passionately as I did. But I also feel that there is some substance in the books - I wouldn't have responded so passionately, and neither would you, if they were completely empty.

But I certainly won't try to argue that you and Professor_Mum shouldn't be disappointed. You have good reason to be, I think.

Also, I gained a lot from the fandom, and I hope you did as well. I don't think you wasted three years of your life, even if the books did turn out to be a disappointment.

THE RUINING OF A CLASSIC

[exhpfan.livejournal.com]

What is sad is that I really did believe that JKR would end the series in a logical and reasonable manner. I did not enjoy my time on fandom, because I always saw the series differently then most of the fantasy genre fans, and was usually "odd man out." I kept telling everyone that I hoped she didn't end the series like they wanted, because if she did it would be trash. She did end the series like they wanted and it was trash.

Re: THE RUINING OF A CLASSIC

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's really interesting. I'd love to know what you expected. Basically, I agree with Sydpad, who said she was deeply disappointed in spite of having guessed a lot of the particulars (Severus loved Lily, Harry as a Horcrux, dead-and-resurrected Harry, and so on.)

What bugged both of us, and many others who commented, was the sheer meanness and mechanical feel of the resolution Rowling wrote. No redemption, no forgiveness or reconciliation, no house unity, no thought or action on Harry's part - just blind obedience - and so on. To get specific, I'd worked out that Harry had a horcrux in his head, but I thought he would replicate his mother's sacrifice by offering to die to save someone else (specifically, Snape). I thought he would actively choose to do this, thus showing love and forgiveness for an enemy, and that love would be what destroyed the horcrux. I wasn't sure whether Harry would survive or not, though I hoped he would.

So the differences from what I expected and what Rowling wrote were these: Active, thinking Harry who acts out of love, not obedience to Dumbledore/despair. (I really, really didn't like the suicide scene. I know a lot of people found it moving, but it left me cold. I don't understand people praising as life-affirinming a book that justifies teen suicide.) No Hallows - the horcruxes were problem enough. It was poor writing, and not playing fair with those readers who thought the books were structured like a mystery, to introduce the Hallows at the last moment, and they added nothing to the plot. I thought Harry and Severus would work together to destroy Voldemort, and I really thought the students and staff from other houses would work together to destroy the other horcruxes. I thought the wizarding world would actually begin to change after Harry's victory, and that people would understand that racism against Muggles led naturally to racism agains Muggleborns! I thought the "magical brethren" might have something to do with the victory! I thought we'd see Fawkes again. And on it goes-

But my chief problem with what Rowling actually wrote is the character of Harry, and how he did, and did not, develop. I just didn't like him in this book, and I didn't like that *everything* he did (his vindictiveness toward Snape, his torture of Amycus, his passivity, and so on) got rewarded. I thought these books were a coming-of-age tale, and that we'd actually get to see Harry grow up. He didn't. He didn't have to change, in a serious way, at all. That meant that, as far as I was concerned, there was no story - no plot. There was just a lot of action that didn't mean anything.

It's really too bad that the fandom didn't give you anything. There is so much creativity there - Wizard Rock! My sister and I now have a band! - and it also got me writing fiction again, which I think is a good thing. And I made some friends, too. All that is very good. But it does still hurt to go back to some sites I used to visit, like the Hogwarts professor, where everyone is praising these books to the skies and no one seems to understand why a reasonable person might be disapppointed in them.

Re: THE RUINING OF A CLASSIC

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

"But my chief problem with what Rowling actually wrote is the character of Harry, and how he did, and did not, develop. ... I thought these books were a coming-of-age tale, and that we'd actually get to see Harry grow up. He didn't. He didn't have to change, in a serious way, at all."

That one is right at the top of my list of gripes with DH, and with the series in general (tied, naturally, with the treatment of Severus.) For the longest time I couldn't understand WHY on earth JKR wouldn't see the problem here! Now, I think it may be that she CAN'T. I went to see HBP with a relative, someone who's only read the books through once and hasn't given much thought to the series. Afterwards we talked, and this was her opinion (makes a lot of sense to me):

JKR said HARRY was the character who just 'came to her,' right? And the books are at least 95% from Harry's POV. (Her interviews to me also seem skewed towards Harry's POV). So in essence they're written 'through' Harry. Dumbledore for instance is the child's idea of God when we first meet him; Snape is the child's vision of the 'nasty teacher,' etc. And while the characters develop some complexity over the course of the series, Harry's view of them never really matures in the sense of understanding them from an adult perspective. He never reaches maturity in any but a biological/legal sense...because JKR (either due to the fact that she's still stuck in the POV of Harry-the-kid-who-appeared-on-the-train, or because she actually isn't that mature herself) can't (or simply won't) actually move to that mature level. She can't write it if she won't go there.

And thus the total lack of reconciliation with Snape, the total lack even of a scene where Harry has to actually emotionally come to GRIPS with this new info, and the necessity of Snape's sudden death. To go there would require a more mature understanding of him and his relationship to Harry! And JKR seems insistent upon remaining within the narrow and immature vision of 'nasty Mr. Nettleship the mean teacher,' who she is thus revenged upon, despite Severus' best efforts at bursting that straightjacket.

Re: THE RUINING OF A CLASSIC

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I am inclined to agree with you - it seems Rowling really cannot see that she wrote an empty story. Unless, as I surmised above, we are meant to end up contemptuous of the Wizarding World and admiring of Harry only because (1) he transcends its shallowness and racism by telling Albus Severus it's okay to be a Slytherin, and (2) he recognizes Snape's virtue? But that's simply not the clearest or most obvious reading.

In the clearest and most obvious reading, Harry never grows up. He never recognizes (as others have said) the potential Dark Lord standing right next to him, never mind his own potential darkness. And it really is hard to see what story Rowling thought she was telling.

Thanks for your comment!

Re: THE RUINING OF A CLASSIC

[exhpfan.livejournal.com]

First of all, I'm not a big fantasy genre fan, especially children's fantasy. My major dislike with these books is that all the adults in the books act like idiots and fools, so the children can be the hero. So Why did I even start reading the Harry Potter series:

I went into my favorite book store to buy a new release of one of my favorite authors. I couldn't believe the lines at the checkout stand. It turned out to be the day OOTP was released. Since I live 50 miles from the nearest book store, I decided to go ahead and stand in line. I had never seen anything like what I was seeing. The books were behind the counter and the customers had to have preorder slips before they could buy the book. The man who was about my age in front of me in line had 2 slips. He told me one was for him and one was for his wife because neither would agree to wait for the other to read the book first. I couldn't believe what I was just told. I told him I wasn't a big fantasy fan and I didn't think I would like the series. He saw the book I was buying and told me the series was as much mystery as it was fantasy. I decided the Harry Potter series was a must read, so I had him save my place in line and went and got the four volume set of books 1-4. After reading these I bought the second edition release of OOTP and read it.
I found the twists used by J. K. Rowling (especially POA and GOF) very well prepared and agreed that she was writing mystery along with fanasty. Except for SS/PS the adults acted reasonable in the books. For this reason, I had after finishing my reading of books 1-5 immediately concluded that the true hidden plot of SS/PS was a trap set up by Dumbledore to capture Vapormort which trap was spoiled by the trio. This conclusion caused the entire plotline up to this point to be reasonable to me.

I then forgot about the series until early 2005. I thought it was about time for book 6 to be released so I got on the internet looking for the release date. I found one of the largest Harry Potter discussion forums and found out that my impression of SS/PS was non-existent on the forum, but it was the only explanation that caused the plot of book 1 to make sense to me. My first thread on the forum was SS/PS was a trap. I have been arguing with the fantasy genre fans ever since. During these discussions I praised JKR constantly on her ability to achieve masterful suprise twist and even compared her to Agatha Christie (The Queen of Misdirection).

It was obvious upon reading HBP that JKR had ended the book at the midway point and that all JKR had done in HBP was set up the mysteries and that the answers to these mysteries were coming in Deathly Hallows. Having to wait two years to read the second half of a mystery is not something I ever want to do again. I spent way too much time on the forums discussing the theories trying to slove the mysteries. All my theories had the adults acting in a reasonable and logical manner, especially Dumbledore.

Sadly it was all a con. She had no great twist or suprise endings to these mysteries. Deathly Hallows was nothing but a "child's fantasy adventure". Since the series is one big epic, this conclusion not only ruined Deathly Hallows for me, but the entire series.

Re: THE RUINING OF A CLASSIC

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Okay. Thanks for explaining; that's quite interesting. We certainly have some differences in our approach.

I am a teen librarian; I know a lot about children's lit and have read a lot of it, and it's just not true that the fantasy genre, more than any other, relies on stupid adults. I'd say that is far truer of the teen problem novel, where kids are left on their own to solve wrenching problems, or even actively abused. I can, off the top of my head, name several fantasy series (both for kids and for adults) in which the adults act responsible and protective and the "kids" grow up. (L.M. Boston, Diane Duane, Lloyd Alexander, C.S. Lewis, Tolkien - not a kids series at all, but kids read it - Megan Whalen Turner, Ursula LeGuin, and Hilari Bell, just for starters.)

As I said above, my real problem with the Potter books is that they fail, in the end, to tell a story. Most fantasies tell stories and have plots. I also think that some of the problems with the books were glaringly obvious, in retrospect, in both POA (where I was repelled by Dumbledore's callousness and the cruelty to Snape) and GOF (where Cedric Diggory had to die of his virtues, not of his faults - I have a paper about that.) GOF also doesn't hold up as a well-plotted novel. Why on earth couldn't Barty Crouch kidnap Harry at any time? It doesn't make sense. And, honestly, most fantasy does make sense. As Tolkien and Le Guin both said, it has to make more sense than almost any other genre if it is to work.

My feelings about the books - like you, once a couple of fellow librarians talked me into reading them, I thought they might be modern classics of children's fiction. I enjoyed them thoroughly, in spite of seeing their flaws, right through OOTP. OOTP gave me hope that Rowling might be aiming for some real emotional and moral depth. Then came HBP, which disappointed me. It seemed flat and boring at times, and I was troubled by the ending - and by Harry's bullying and cheating behavior, which had no repercussions for him. Up to DH, HBP was my least favorite. It was HBP that propelled me into the fandom; I was looking for some assurance that the Christian themes and symbols I'd noticed in the earlier books meant something. Then came DH - and all the things I'd loved in the series were pretty much negated, while the things that had troubled me were confirmed. What a disappointment!

In the end, these books are morally dubious and fail to tell a coherent story.

But, as I said above, if it was Rowling's goal to get her readers to hate fantasy, she almost succeeded with me. That's something - I guess. I still don't like it, if that was her goal, but at least she may have had a goal.

Re: THE RUINING OF A CLASSIC

[colyngbourne.livejournal.com]

I've really appreciated reading all these sane assessments of how JK failed in HP (and particularly in Book 7) - I agree with all you've said, but would add that another thing I honestly despised Bk7 for (I'm not sure I've ever felt so disgusted or let-down) was the seeming okay'ing of the use of the Unforgiveables by the White Hates, and that this is never mentioned as reprehensible, needing to be justified etc. As if the war situation justifies them using the kind of torture and behaviour that the Black Hats have been condemned for, but without criticism by anyone, let alone the author.

re Snape being a figure striving for sainthood (and JK not understanding/appreciating her own character), you may have seen the good article in Christian Science Monitor judging Snape to be the hero of the series? http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0725/p09s02-coop.html?page=1

Re: THE RUINING OF A CLASSIC

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes! I did read that article, and agree wholeheartedly, but thanks for linking to it again. As to your comment about the Unforgivable Curses and the "good guys", I agree with you. I guess I didn't make this clear enough in my original post - but my chief problem with them, as the book stands, isn't so much that Harry and Hermione performed them, as that they performed them, felt no consequences, and were never sorry for performing them. That disgusted me. Yes, it's very possible for kids under stress to do wrong (and torture is a very great wrong, as is brainwashing). But to do these evil things, to still be depicted as pure of soul, and never to think about these acts again, or to feel anything except pride at achieving them - UGH! That is really disgusting, and made me lose all sympathy for Harry completely. It is not a good thing if you lose all sympathy for the protagonist in a novel. I'd really like to know what Rowling was thinking when she wrote this scene, and how she thought her readers would take it. I would think any normal, ethical adult reader - and any older kid with even a modicum of empathy - would be disgusted with Harry and Hermione.

And this is what I mean when I say that Harry did not grow up. He never had to be sorry for misjudging Snape or failing to help him when he had the chance; he never had to be sorry for the harm he had done anyone; he never reevaluated (or even simply evaluated) his beliefs and actions - and thinking about your beliefs, and your place in the world, is a core part of adolescence, isn't it?

Thanks for reading, and for your comment. )

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Well, I honestly think that I am giving Rowlling too much credit, too! And I think I nailed what she was up to, and what she did, in my essay "Harry Potter and the Mores of the 19th Century". In the end, it's just a mish-mash,and the greatness many of us thought we perceived in it were echoes of other, genuinely great, books.

But it's true, I think, that she doesn't like or understand the fantasy genre, and it's true that the books did have this effect on me. I'm a fantasy fan, and they got me to hate magic. It would be interesting, and would make me think a bit better of Rowling, if that was actually her intent.

But I do agree with you - I don't seriously think it was. I'm not sure she had any intent, actually.

overall comment on your original, finally!

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Yes, you're probably giving her way too much credit--but it's a fascinating thought, and may well have been going on subconsciously....

If her goal was to get people to dislike magic, then those "Christians" who get their knickers in a twist about Halloween and so forth should force their kids to read HP.

[pierettebronski.livejournal.com]

Hi,

I just came across this entry and I know it's old and you are probably done with the topic but I just have to add my two cents.

First of all, I'm not an expert when it comes to fantasy literature. Anyway I have my own theory of what Rowling might have meant by saying that HP subverts the fantasy genre.

Fantasy novels create worlds which differ strongly from the readers reality. As far as I know, they classically do so not only by the use of supernatural elements, like magic, mythical creatures and so on, but also by setting the plot into a different age like the medieval.
Therefore the social and political structures of the story usually strongly differ from those experienced by the reader in his everyday life (feudal system).

Unlike SiFi a classical fantasy novel doesn't aim for making a statement about the “real world” but for giving us a way to escape it, if only for a short while.

I'm not sure if novels set in modern times qualify as fantasy in the classical meaning of the word. As I said I'm not an expert. The only series that comes to my mind right now, which does contains supernatural elements and huge parts of which are set in the present (relating to the books date of appearance), are The Vampire Chronicles. Even if we consider them fantasy, the world of the vampire elite, which the series is centered around, is so extremely far away from our everyday live experience (immortality, fabulous wealth, unhuman straight tec). By this it resembles the above mentioned Tolkien-kind-of-book.

Harry Potter undermines the mentioned concept by using classical elements of the fantasy genre like magic but creating an alternative world that is extremely similar to our own, considering the social mechanics (group dynamics, great importance of popularity), bureaucracy and, last but not least, the way the wizards use a channeled form of energy for convenience and entertainment in every subarea of their lives. Their magic is our electricity. They depend on it and it comes natural to them to use it. I mean, they use “lumos” as I would a flashlight.

So all in all, when Rowling speaks of subverting the fantasy genre, maybe she is referring to this mirroring quality of the novel?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Unlike SiFi a classical fantasy novel doesn't aim for making a statement about the “real world” but for giving us a way to escape it, if only for a short while.

This is interesting (and thanks for commenting!) I am very tired right now, and can't give your response quite the thought it deserves, but I will say this:

Tolkien talked about "consolation" and "escape" being essential parts of fantasy literature as he understood it. But the escape itself was always a commentary on the world that his fantasy world contrasted to - and he also said, in his best- known work:

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house" (the Two Towers, Folio edition, page 40)

It's true he didn't write allegory, but he did expect that his works would be applicable to our world, as, indeed, they are. And -

Most fantasies do comment on right behavior and what it means to be a free, adult person. At least, those are the sorts of fantasies I'm used to reading. Terri-testing has a fascinating essay on her livejournal about fantasy and its role; her conclusion was that Rowling is not writing traditional fantasy at all, but rather horror. I am inclined to agree with her. Even if you don't agree that Rowling's real bent is towards horror, I think it's pretty clear that her magical World is parasitic and intellectually, imaginatively, and morally stunted, as are most of its inhabitants. It's not a good place. And what I was saying with this essay is that perhaps Rowling means us to see that the Magical World is not a good place, and that it tends to stunt its inhabitants in various ways.

More later, when I have the energy. Thanks for reading and commenting!

[pierettebronski.livejournal.com]

Thank you so much for the quick and extensive reply! My own comes a little late due to RL business.

It's true he didn't write allegory, but he did expect that his works would be applicable to our world, as, indeed, they are. And -
Most fantasies do comment on right behavior and what it means to be a free, adult person.

I agree but I still believe, that while Tolkiens fiction (and other fantasies) comment on dateless values, HP in certain ways is (also) a comment on the modern western society.

I am inclined to agree with her. Even if you don't agree that Rowling's real bent is towards horror, I think it's pretty clear that her magical World is parasitic and intellectually, imaginatively, and morally stunted, as are most of its inhabitants. It's not a good place.

I totally agree! The strong ambiguity of all the characters and of the presented moral standards often gave me a really awkward feeling while reading. Come to think of it, this could be one of the reasons why I gave up on the books in mid-series years ago (I’m currently re-reading). On the other hand, I think, that this deeper layer of the text, which shows a very flawed world, is part of what makes the books so good.

And what I was saying with this essay is that perhaps Rowling means us to see that the Magical World is not a good place, and that it tends to stunt its inhabitants in various ways.

I see your point but I believe, that by presenting their Magic World as a bad place, the books present the real world as a not so good place in some ways, too. In my opinion HP contains strong references to the real world and presents a quite interesting study on how human relations might work.

By the way, I think we agree on the fact, that the HP books deface the virtues of classical fantasies by adding a dark aspect to them, e.g. friendship goes with social exclusion of “less deserving” individuals, fatherly guidance goes with manipulation and instrumentalisation – Dumbledore is Gandalf perfect counterpart. I find this to be equally disturbing and ingenious.

[pierettebronski.livejournal.com]

p.s. I'll read Terri-testings essay as soon as I get some spare time!